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.

 BryllCream wrote:
The idea of netlists is absurd anyway. Your army's power depends entirely on your meta, something that most "advice" tends to ignore.

Not when you're looking for a literal "TAC" list.

Part of the problem is that people rarely explain their lists fully. If you want to take something oddball but want advice on the rest of the list you need to make that clear in the op.

I tend you find that if you explain exactly what you want people will try to help.
If you don't, you get generic advice.
For example, if you start a post with - Eg, I really like lictors and I'd like to build an army around them, what works well with it? what are the best units to support it? you'll get accurate advice.
Some of which will still be - lictors suck, don't ever take them. But some will be things like - you can use it to try and ds a mawloc onto something.
If you just post 'this is my army list - advice needed' you get lictors are awful, don't do that.
I find the best use of the army lists is idea 'borrowing' (theft lol). Every now and then, somebody comes up with something that you've just plain never thought of - Like allying The DE Baron with wraithguard, or putting harlequins behind wraithguard for a 2+.
I've been told in the past (different sites admittedly) that wraithwall is completely unviable. I've won a few games with it, and on Dakka, there are a fair few people (myself included) singing it's praises because it is so hard to take down.
I make army lists for fun and I enjoy having them checked over - to make sure I've not done something daft rules wise, or that I've not done something completely illegal which would make what I want it to do null and void.
You get out what you put in.

And besides, what are you supposed to do if you play an army
but never ever win because everyone else always hammers you?

I know we're suppposed to play for fun, but atually winning every once in a while sweetens the deal

Generic Army lists work because they stack the most OP units in every army.

This then causes problems for people who don't, becuase unless the Generic-Army oponent has some seriosly bad luck, or doesn't know how to play his army, he will probably roll over your mathematically inferior choices.

Player skill>netlist.

There is a small measure of pride to be had in beating 'the unbeatable net list army' with rubbish fluffy choices. And it's do-able.

EG:
For a laugh I once took a list comprised almost entirely of wraithlords against marines - my opponant won not because he killed my army (he pretty much had nothing that could kill them), but because he looked at my lists's weaknesses and decided to out manouver it. At the end of the game nothing had been killed at all, so no linebreaker, first blood or slay the warlord - it came down to linebreaker. So he won.

Never take you eye off your objectives.

To the OP cut and paste can seem to happen for three reasons in my opinion:
1. Lack of variety in codicies
2. Fluff lists ( I fall in this I Spam terminators and reads because its fluffy.)
3. Power Gamers.

1. Lack of variety only occurs in a very few rare cases such as Eldar where dire avengers are really necessary space marines bikes or tacticals.

2. Fluff lists these arwe written by Fluff favoring players and some tend to have less variety. Such as the all melee khorne army.

3. Power gamers I assume these are the general group you have noticed. John who saw a list online of 18 flamers and 18 screamers and is now copying it with slavish detail. If you run into these people you can either play them or ignore them. I have a pair at my store who I cannot stand because they use all the most broken tricks to try and make themselves the best gamers in the store. However now everyone knows who they are and no one will give them a game.

Also Wraithwall is devastating but it is so easy to counter if you have ranged anti tank aka missile launchers

The wraithwall example was to show it's possible to win in 40k even if most of your guns don't work

PredaKhaine wrote:
The wraithwall example was to show it's possible to win in 40k even if most of your guns don't work it was a one off illegal game with a shedload of t8 monstrous creatures for 1000pts

Fair enough BTW i'm a fan of wraithwall and knida wanna do a small Iyanden list with Wraiths and Yriel. the only thing holding me back i sthe fact that it is 480 dollars for my list!

Lunacara wrote:
Hi, I have been watching this site here for a while and browsing in the army list section for ideas on whats everyone's ideas for armies to get ideas for my own. I have even posted on there a few times myself looking for help to make the lists as strong as they can be. Anyways, my question is: When did 40k seem to become very cut and paste? Like every time I look at the army lists forum I see almost the same army posted OR I see someone with an idea, and someone promoting this "cut and paste" army style. Is there anyone out there that just plays for the fun of it, and doesn't really care about using the most powerful "cut and paste" army. Or even creating their own because they can. Anyways I don't want this to sound like a rant or anything of that degree, was just curious as to when it started and why it does happen on here, or anywhere for that matter.

All of my armies are story/theme based when I play. I decide on the force I want to present and build it regardless of whether the units I included are uber cost efficient and the best of the best. I include some of them at times, and also include others that people consider "useless". The only useless units for me are those that I have minis for and never use, so I make sure to use them all when I can.

In any competitive situation some people are just going to focus on the best possible units and combination of said units to play. It is just the way those types of people are. Others, not wanting to be lost in the power shuffle will jump on the bandwagon to still feel relevant. Those who are ridiculously competitive won't even look at an army if it isn't considered one of the top power armies. I far prefer watching the face of the "uber" players when my army full of "useless", but effectively used units defeats their "perfect" army just fine. I've long found it is the skill level of the player and not just a waac list that wins games consistently. Good players who take competitive lists can be tough opponents, but bad players with competitive lists are still bad players in my experience.

Luckily for me I play more with close friends now and we all have the same attitude about running themed forces and not just waac forces. So I rarely have to deal with it anymore. Best suggestion I can make is put together or find a group of like minded players who aren't caught up in the uber competitive meta game and enjoy yourself.

Skriker

My lists are purely lore based, mainly cause painting and lore is my favourite thing of 40k.

If only I could get advice on the army list forum from people like the ones above lol. I guess I will just go my own way and learn the hard way from actually playing and not look at said forums. I cannot wait to game again, since I have been very busy in the Oilfields atm, as this is our busy part of the year, and look forward to buying the BT army that I have created. Its gonna be sick!

The Dark Apostle wrote:
My lists are purely lore based, mainly cause painting and lore is my favourite thing of 40k.

I wish I could get my excited by the painting aspects. I don't mind painting, but I think of all the facets of the hobby it is my least favorite. Playing and modeling are the biggies for me which is why I've bought and built so many armies and sold them off before painting them at all.

Skriker

Because people tend to find the most powerful list they can, then spread it around. I tend to goof off when I make lists, so it tends to be hit or miss alot

I've been thinking on this one for a little bit, I think people post lists that they want to be competitive in a tournament environment to get the critiques that may or may not show flaws or strengths in that list, whereas a fun list is just that; something you create because it would be fun to run. In my case, a whole bunch of assault marines and death company.

lets do a comparison..

If the game has enough balance and game play to let players pick what they want,and learn to use it effectively.
And over the course of learning how their own army works enjoy a social and craft enhancing hobby of table top games.

Then players simply pick freely ANY combination they want to KNOWING they are not going to handicap themselves when they play.And the wide variety of armies and players play styles generates massive interest and diversity in the game.And the game grows over time as it attracts and retains players.

Now concider 40k , which has very little balance at all, and has a heavy strategic focus, rather than a tactical one.This simply promotes sales of the latest minatures at the detriment of the game play

And because collecting an army for 40k takes a lot of time and cash.
Those not wanting to'waste their time and money' on units that are 'not cost effective', will ask those who have seen the imbalance and use the most cost effective options.

And the others who like to just select units due to background and/or personal preference, and play narrative games with their friends...

Cut and paste armies are just the logical extension of a game that is very list-driven. When list building becomes a major focus, then the lists that are successful, or easier to run will be repeated reused and widespread.

The root issue is when did fantasy and sci/fi wargaming become list-driven, and if this thread...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/388034.page
...is any indication, it's been that way for a long time. We just didn't have as much internet community back then.

the internet is what it is. just be glad forums are nt anything like your flgs...unles they are then i am sorry for you.

You post a list because you have an interesting idea regarding how a list might work, or a new way to use a unit within the context of a list. Why would you post a net list? Everyone knows how they work, there's nothing new in them, nothing to say. It's just spamming.

Lists that are not already proven winners are the only thing that is at all interesting about posted lists.

I never use "cut and paste" armies, preferring the more fluffy approach to army building. I find it makes for more enjoyable games and a more satisfying win when it happens. I have only played in one tournament and even then I took an army that wasn't the most competitive I could have made from the codex (I used daemons with only khorne units) and I had a good time. I even won most of my games.