Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

The last sentence is the most sensible. You can't blame a game that doesn't set out to be tournament-balanced for not being tournament-balanced. Generally, I find that 40k is pretty much fine for balance in a friendly environment. If you want to take it into a tournament environment it doesn't work as well. This isn't the fault of the game.

I would argue that it is. Competitive balance can only move to improve the game for everyone. It means that players who are of a more competitive level have a more open ended game with more variety and tactical breadth, while players who are more casual in their gaming interests have the same options available to them, can play with a wider pool of people (ie, competitive players to a competent degree), and allows them to grow in their tactical and strategical understanding of the game without feeling as if they are leaving behind some of the better aspects of their enjoyment of the game by picking better options as they improve (which will naturally happen with a group of players over time as a metagame develops, lest it stagnate, become boring, and die).

I say this as a casual player with more interest in modelling and painting (just don't bring up why I haven't finished anything in a while...) than actually playing the game.

I agree that a balanced and clear game is better for everyone. It's needed for tournament players, but it's still good for casuals. My more casual gaming buddies are the ones who fell by the wayside over the years as they didn't want to put the work into keeping up with changes and FAQs. To that end I've been quite happy with the progress of 3rd to 4th to 5th editions. Each has been clearer and better designed and more balanced than the one before.

There's a pretty darn good mix of codices which can compete and win at the top end right now. It is heavy with SM books, but so is the list of codices.

GK, BA, SW, IG, DE, Necrons, vanilla SM, Orks all regularly do well and show up in the final rounds. Chaos, Eldar, Tyranids and Daemons also show up occasionally when good players bring them, but are a bit handicapped. Tau also can beat any of the above in any given game, but have difficulty sustaining it over a tournament.

Part of this is due to the 5th ed focus on objectives over VPs, which means armies can sustain heavy casualties and still win out due to better positioning and movement. So minor mathematical imbalances in pure filling power can regularly be overcome by superior play of the mission, table, and overall game situation.

AustonT wrote:
How dare people use what works in thier codex. They wouldn't be so prevalent if they didn't work.

While I can see the OP's point about netlists, I also agree with this. The reason most units turn up (Longfangs, etc) is because they're good so naturally are picked up by players.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?

I'm guilty of this one, but not by my design. My Space Wolves 13th Company has had a pair of small Long Fang units in the build since The Eye of Terror codex. And only one of them has a missile launcher, and that's because the models I had available required me to field a missile launcher, because that's what I had.

I find it pretty funny when you are an older player (I'm 30, been playing for 15 years) and you can see new Editions/Codex books make a new-found fad/crutch out of something you have been using for years on end.

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?

I've never run a leafblower, and I've done reasonably well for myself with my guard army.

There are lots of people who think outside of boxes. You apparently just haven't come across many of them yet.

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

I havent seen any of these lists at my local club, i think the problem may be that you go to alot of tourneys? or your local meta is too competative?

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

Don't blame it on players that want to be competitive at a competitive event.

Maybe competitive 40k tourneys just aren't for you?

I like to run stormtroopers an 9 tanks in my IG...
and for my tyrainds, I run hormogaunt/venomthrop spam.

kinratha wrote:I like to run stormtroopers an 9 tanks in my IG...
and for my tyrainds, I run hormogaunt/venomthrop spam.

You're clean, move along

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

No, as can be seen by most of the replies in this thread, you are not forced to take a net list, nobody puts a gun to your head and says "spam that unit." If people play the lists they found on the internet it is their choice and to claim otherwise is rather silly. I'm sure that an unconventional list could do pretty well in the hands of a good player.

I have to say since 4th ed came out I avoided tourneys like the plague. The last ever tourney I went to (to take part in) I saw almost identical GK lists everywhere, went with my cousin to observe a tourney he was in a year or so ago, he came back saying it was like playing the same army again and again. The tourney scene is all the same these days. You want rage... go tourney... you want fun... go local games club...

I would add the KFF and lootaz to that list for orks.

If there is a unit which is ridiculously efficient(like Long Fangs) or can do something no other part of your army can do as good (plague marines), or multiplies the power of your entire army by being present(lash princes), leaving them out is not "Thinking outside the box". It's handicapping yourself.

What the op is trying to do here is telling people how they should have fun. People play long fangs, lash princes, leafblower IG or battlewagons for other reasons than WAAC netlisting. They play them because they like playing that way.

That aside I run an infantry HEAVY CSM list with a couple summons now, it does pretty well (about 60-40) untill I hit a tankspam list and even then its 50-50ish...

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.

If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

Or play non-competitive games with people that you can trust to not go too far out of their ways to win.

40k isn't that unbalanced. If you're running across mech spam a lot, then just tailor your list to destroy mech spam. The penalty to relying on net lists is getting destroyed by those who don't.

If you're not willing to do what it takes to show them the error of their ways, then stop whining.

The reason you see nothing but "broken" or "cheese" lists is because the game is too fething expensive not to build paint and base an army that's not going to totally bring the rape.

If you can pay 130pts for a 12 12 10 fast skimmer with 3 twin linked las cannons why would you even consider any other fast attack options? If you can get 2 wound psycher terminators all standard with str 5 storm bolters and str 5 powerweapons at i 5 AND theyre troops on top of it why would you ever play vanilla marines?

Dont ask these questions when the answers are obvious.

n0t_u wrote:None of my armies are even in that list.

I think for Daemons it was Fateweaver and crushers? Not sure, but I play mono-Slaanesh anyway which seems to be considered the weakest list of the book from memory. For Eldar I ran a hybrid of foot and mech, a fire base of Guardians and Dark Reapers with the Avatar and a Wraithlord to anchor it; the Avatar usually wandering towards the front to keep threat up while a couple of Wave Serpents with Dire Avengers in them to zoom up the sides. Not a Falcon, Fire Prism or Fire Dragon in sight. For SoB I was sort of towards the power list at the time, but also a fair bit from it. Haven't changed it all that much for the WD update, no plans on getting Uriah at the moment and the Living Saint doesn't fit in with the rest of the list. Exorcists are a given though, but more or less the reason a lot of SoB lists seem to gravitate towards similar builds is more to do with restriction.

Khorne
Slaanesh
Nurgle
Tzeentch

Slaanesh and Nurgle have some really good matchups and some really bad ones. Khorne is all around good and has the added benefit of being good against GK (Blessing of the Blood God on 2 Thirsters, 3 princes, and hounds? Yes please). Tzeentch looks okay on paper but not having all of their shooting available at the outset of the game is an issue. I've tried the mono-Tzeentch list and as good as I think it is, it folds badly against lots of armies.

I was placed 5th in a tourny with my chaos list(i posted it on here not too long ago) , ahead of a 9 oblit, dual lash list. Anything is possible! Plus i have success with my sang. guard army for ba. Finally my DE arent venomspam there raiderspam

How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

Feth wrote:How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

That is really badass.

hah hah hah, a Wahmbulance... On a serious note my friends dark eldar is unbeaten and doesn't have any venoms, also it has incubi and a mega killy archon in it. Not a cookie cutter in sight, however they just burn't down the bakery and stole the slaves...

Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?

I can see the point in many of the other complaints you listed, but you covered 3 very different GK builds, all with a fair bit of variation.

It sorta seems like you just don't like it if anyone plays GK at all.

I have jumpy BA, 4 venoms, 2 raiders, 2 ravagers for dark eldar, ....

Purifiers aren't super nasty either IMO. I use them and I have only done so-so in my times playing them, and people still complain for some reason.

I play them because I love their fluff and how the army functions on the TT. Its most like the old codex in a way.

Granted, I could optimise my list alot more then it is but overall I think the Anti-GK rants that go on are baseless whining by second rate generals who simply can't/won't man up and take it.

Slaanesh and Nurgle have some really good matchups and some really bad ones.

Mono-nurgle is the worst, at the very least things in other lists can hurt vehicles, the only thing mono-nurgle is good against is Tyranids, anything with mech will hurt them, anything faster than them will outrun them, sure they'll survive but that's all they can do. They can't hurt vehicles in the slightest.

Feth wrote:How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

You can take vultures as a FA option as per the forge world rules for them.

Gonna play a DKoK list using FW rules, that means no veterans, no chimeras and no air support, because they're not in the Krieg pdf.

Now now, my artillery IS 25 points cheaper and my guardsmen are harder to break...

Net lists are only of use in tournaments. Any list can be countered if your opponent knows you're going to use it.

Ailaros wrote:40k isn't that unbalanced. If you're running across mech spam a lot, then just tailor your list to destroy mech spam. The penalty to relying on net lists is getting destroyed by those who don't.

If you're not willing to do what it takes to show them the error of their ways, then stop whining.

Ill agree until you through Grey Knights into the mix. Im sorry, no matter how hard people try to argue the other way, I personally think the GK are just way over powered. Any of the other codices are fine, sure some seem to be a little harder to take on, but over all I think the rest of them are where they should be. GK OTOH, are just nuts, its the Chaos Demons in Warhammer fantasy all over again

It's really not nearly as bad as chaos daemons were. You need something to blow up the dreads and/or tough transports (LR or SR), and you need stuff to pop transports and kill regular marines, which most of the stuff in the codex (not Paladins) is as durable as, but more expensive. It also really helps to have some sort of psychic defense.

My BA are doing quite well against GK, where my Chaos needed a little dice luck. The BA are a little cheaper, a bit faster and shootier, and they bring psychic defense.