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.

Wait huh? Not quite. It's a combination. List building is important. A net list will generally help influence your victory. Forever, themed armies can work extremely well, partially because they are arguably anti-meta. A Land Raider is generally considered bad but taking it in a lower point list or even spamming it can sometimes even beat a netlist when the generals are of equal level simply because the army doesn't have the weapons. It becomes a rock paper scissor game where one struggles because of how many flyers Necrons have brought but then another codex with more AA capabilities naturally or built into the list will do better.

Now onto another factor, I'm glad to hear that you are doing well with sub par units. Don't get me wrong, that's cool. Yet that's like me winning a game with a raptor list I played or my Tzeentchian army. It's several factors that lead to victory. One, how competitive is the meta? Is everybody fielding their best, most optimal list or are they deploying sub par units because the meta in general support a greater diversity if a slight slackening of the competitive scene. Heck, is it just casual and/or fluffy at large? All of these can lead to different outcomes. Then you couple in luck. 40k is dramatically luck based. Much of competitive building is about minimizing luck but there's always still some outrageous successes and failures. Pink Horrors can level entire hordes but they just as much might just be denied entirely or kill 1 unit and give the enemy FNP. Finally, there's the general. He can influence victory significantly indeed. Proper playing, perhaps some deceptive tactics and even your facial expressions can all lead to it.

In the end though, it's not the only answer. A themed KSons army is generally going to lose against a Screamerstar list. Not always of course but more often than not the Screamers are going to win out. Now, if the screamerstar's general is largely bad and you are an extremely competent player, well you'll have the edge. That said, you'd have a greater edge playing the screamerstar. The game's internal and external balance is a mess. Certain things are just plain better to others.

Yet again, I'm glad you are doing well but how can I really trust your anecdotal experience? I don't know your meta, I don't know what you allow and don't allow (Escallation, dataslates, Imperial Knights as some examples), I don't know how competent you are compared to other players, I don't really know anything about your experience. For all I know your meta might be semi-competitive where you'll see the occasional netlist but largely more diverse, if less effective lists. Or perhaps you are just vastly more competent at playing the game than your other opponents.

Finally, the was once a man named The Evil One. He went on to rail how CC was broken op constantly every chance he got despite how it was generally proven that there are very few exceptions for what are good CC units and lists. Yet he continued to complain about how bad they were. Well do I trust him over data from most competitive environments and observe how, assuming the individuals that get to the top are of equal leadership, and the fact that most of them oriented to very specific lists, it leads to the assumption that those are the most optimal lists currently and show which armies are good and which armies are bad.

Those are all valid points as far as they go. My problem is this: we're "discussing" a codex. Not me.

However, startrotter I play this codex. My regular opponents include all the lists you see out there, where it matters, on the battlefield. All the favored types are represented here locally: Mechdar, Daemon Flying circus, Taudar, and the list goes on. I'd pit some of our Generals against anyone. But who cares. We're talking bout the codex, right?

Codex's alone cant win a darn thing. If we win with it, arguing that it cant win effectively means zilch. Those arguments against it come from frustrations. The frustration has as much to do with GW as it does this codex. I hear "meta" used a lot, but this game has the same rules everywhere in the world. Im on enough forums to know what people are doing at Adepticon, NOVA, Bay area open and all that. Its not a big mysterious thing. I am tuned in to it but what difference does the meta make? I can play against those same armies HERE locally. Yes with Chaos Marines.

I can claim "Meta", claim "opponent strength" and claim "luck" as arguments that Taudar are not "viable" too. But I am equally sure that no one would listen who knows the game if i said that. Based on what? Yes: Experience. "Anecdotal" experience.

I frankly think we all can do a lot...a lot...better than using catchy words to ignore whats happening. They're hollow words. They are excuses when you have no list in front of you to evaluate, no terrain to make a strategy with.

Good luck in your games Startrotter. Like I said, I don't win em all; but Im in no way going to apologize for the wins. When asked, I say Its competitive. I dont sell codex's and have no reason to lie.

Oh no, I am glad that you are doing well. Especially with Night Lords. I also don't intend to imply that I consider you to be lying or cheating. In fact, I think you might arguably be, from the rate of your wins, one of the better players in your group. At least, that is my assumption.

I only use them for a general context. When I say meta I generally hint at how competitive an environment. If they bring net lists or if they are more like mine where we don't really allow heldrakes because we don't really have enough money to spend it and the first 3 games we included flyers in weren't entertaining in the slightest. So, overall, you could say my local meta is far more casual with a preference for narrative games. Not that we don't sometimes build lists that are a bit nasty and then try to play to see which one of us shall win in a equal playing field. With opponent strength (also depends on their armies. For example a heldrake isn't really as worthwhile against a IG horde in comparison to against a non-terminator army of SM) and luck, I meant that those are other things that factor into variable playstiles. Whilst I rarely opt for it, I'll play a Tzeentchian CSM army on ocassion as they are my favorite god for my first army and will manage a victory. In part because of using terrain, in part because of our slightly more laid back nature, in part because I'm tied with one other for generally being the most efficient when it comes to planning moves, and having an odd habit for failing 3+ saves but rolling 5+ saves like nobody's business.

As per the codex, I'd argue it is a sub par codex with internal balance problems and generally being lower tiered than the rest. I, at least believe, that it gives the individual a disadvantage against a more competitive list but one can win through proper planning and a bit of lucky rolls (and just as much be doomed by lucky rolls. I'll never forget when my friend rolled 6 saves only needing to pass one to not die and he proceeded to fail all 6 of them. The game stopped for about 2 minutes to laugh).

Anyways, good luck in your games as well Jancoran. May you strike terror into your foes!