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.

So, I have a game coming up against a friend this weekend. I've been sitting here pondering a list for the past 2 days and drawing an utter blank because I don't like one or two things about it. As a result, I feel like the whole is flawed and I just start over again.

So the question I pose to you, dakka, is have you ever had this problem and what did you do to break yourself out of the rut?

If I feel that "something" is off, I try to strip the list down to the things I definitely want to keep and then look at what I can get with the remaining points. Playtesting is the real way to figure out what you need though.

Generally I pick a few core units, try to decide on a strategy and build the army around them. Then test and see if everything works.

I'm not sure if something is off or if I'm trying too hard to think outside of my comfort zone of the lists I normally play with and am rather successful with.

For example: I'm trying to write a Crowe list, (I've never played a purifier list, btw.) Normally they're pretty straight forward, but it's dumb things like: okay do I want a 24" range psycannon spam with razorbacks list, or do I want rhinos. Do I take a second HQ because Crowe is meh, what about interceptors or dreadknights to shunt and get rear armor.

Just a million questions float in my head at once. lol

Oh, you play GK's? Forget it then. Pick anything and you'll do fine.

Seriously though, I'm always happy with my lists because I'm just so happy to play. Getting massacred sucks, but not playing sucks (somewhat) worse.

Hell, bring a unit everyone else thinks is bad just to throw off your opponents. I've had many a better player then me mummble about how "lame" regular Ork Bikers are because they weren't expecting it.

I normally get my lists to a place I'm happy with them about a day before the next edition or codex comes out, then I need to start over.

I'm happy with my casual list,s as i'm going for a feel and a theme rather than 'the best list evah, with all new mathhammer action '.

My tournament lists get tweaked a bit more, but i'm generally happy with them. I change lists all the time, trying new stuff, rather than having one static list.

It's not so much the units as the dice and the skill of the player that matter, barring a couple of OP units out there, and as long as i'm having fun losing is fine, though winning is better

I don't ragequit if my uber-tweaked deathstar cheese unit goes down easy, because i don't take uber-tweaked deathstar cheese

I've only ever created two lists that I was completely happy with in my lifetime. One for 3rd edition, and one for 5th. Can't wait till 6th rolls arounds and screws it up.

I will agonized over and tinker with my list(s) for forever. There's always a struggle between wanting to field certain units and still be competitive versus all comers.

It is my own personal masochistic OCD affair, getting the list just right, and then either realizing I've forgotten to account for something, or that I should also include some other unit.

Another thing that used to drive me nuts was left over points. I was never able to accept having left over points until the past year or so. I am now able to forgive (myself for not spending) the last 1~4 points that can be left over after creating a list.

I have a set list I field the times I play, I rarly change anything on them except for in the heavy support part

JGrand wrote:If I feel that "something" is off, I try to strip the list down to the things I definitely want to keep and then look at what I can get with the remaining points. Playtesting is the real way to figure out what you need though.

This exactly. There are some units that look bad on paper and preform well, and vice versa. Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in the internet bandwagon about some units, and never try them, which is a shame. As an example, I thought Deathmarks were pretty bad, until I started using them, and discovered I really like them.

Project2501 wrote: It is my own personal masochistic OCD affair, getting the list just right.

I'm with you pretty much on everything you said especially the above. I'm always trying to make my list as fluffy and balanced as possible. As well as making it flavorful and diverse in tactics. I use to hate that 1997 point value, I even started to get really annoyed and start to figure out what units I was taking that were making uneven numbers and even them out. It was a real annoyance too me.
I guess my biggest sucess playing with numbers is my 5 man Incubi squad costing 198 pt's, my Scourge squad costing 142 pt's and lastly a 98 point Reaver squad evening each other out to a cold 440 pt. I can't stand uneven points, makes me miss the 3rd builds with the 1 pt value wargear. But I'm with you on the OCD issue.
Far as lists go, I don't know it takes me months to make a list I'm happy with. I always make fluffy all comer lists. But I try and make them moderately competitive in some way. I generally go 50% troops on points and then the rest I balance out in percentages. I try and always aim for a....

% Pts
HQ 18 360
Elite 7 140
Troops 50 2k
Fast 7 140
Heavy 18 360


I avoid or adjust this at times though by putting say the Incubi points with the HQ since they roll with the HQ what not. Other issues are fluffy # values like with Chaos numbers or standard unit counts or numbers I feel are lucky for unit sizes(3,7,10). I use to even try and balance out the model count, vehicles and deep strikers to values I enjoyed but the more you take into consideration the more insane you get. But all that relates to the... "Are you happy with your list......" but in the end you probably wont be. You will love parts of it and hate parts of it. And some parts just want avoid or not even talk about.

-Sincerely Viridian

PipeAlley wrote:Oh, you play GK's? Forget it then. Pick anything and you'll do fine..

Coteaz, 72 mystics and a GK brother captain to deep strike. Got it. lol

Anyway, I meticulously write lists over and over again for all of the armies I play, (IG, BT, GK, Codex Chapter.)

I think part of the problem is that I don't get to play much, so I don't playtest a lot. Maybe I should just get Vassal...