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.

Well a little backstory/rant-esque:

My Elysian/Harkoni Warhawks Regiment is dedicated to the melta and I often play with the army for fun/friendly games. After a while, I wanted to try my hand at a competitive (Non-Forge World) Imperial Guard list that did not rely on the damnable Melta. I did, and through rigerous trial and error, figured out the strengths and weaknesses of each unit, where and when to place and move them, assisting other units etc.

So the big day came: my first big tournament (Called the Easter Extermination) with a fresh new Imperial Guard list .

And I was laughed at.

"You took Vanquishers?"
"Flamer Vets, what?"
"Exterminators, you can get two whole AC platoons and change!"

Alot of people went on and on about how there's no meltas in my army or that it was filled with weak units. And they went that extra step to point out what unit that was vastly superior to my poorly self-concious tanks and troops.

Though I managed to grab third (losing to a DE Venom List and a Orky green tide), people were amazed that my 'weak' units beat thiers.


So I'm rather perturbed; does this mean my army was never supposed to win? Was I supposed to lay down and let superior lists roll over me?

What say you, Dakka Community; Are tournament lists successful from the catch-all, clutch units in a Codex, or by the General wielding the units he chooses?

Frankly, the people you were playing with sound like complete dicks. It wouldn't matter whether they lost or rolled over your army easily, that kind of talk is right out. I'm glad you beat them, but honestly I wouldn't even lower myself to play with those kinds of people in the first place.

Its a combination of both, in my opinion. Someone who plays a list that it an autolose for you can sometimes beat you out even when you made all of the right moves. Its definitely a combination of both.

Also those people sound awful. Worst people to play against ever.

Red Comet wrote:Its a combination of both, in my opinion. Someone who plays a list that it an autolose for you can sometimes beat you out even when you made all of the right moves. Its definitely a combination of both.

Also those people sound awful. Worst people to play against ever.

Since the Baltimore Gamesday dissapeared and something happening to 'Ard Boys (I'm not exactly sure what), there's been an influx of disgruntled Grand Tournament players who still itch for tournaments. I'm not saying everyone was like that, but there were a handful that even drinking beer couldn't tolerate.

Its both. Taking sub-optimal units automatically puts you at a disandvantage you have to work over. A great player will have a good chance of beating a poor player with similar lists, but giving a good player a Tau ethereal list filled with foot firewarriors and vespids against a poor player with a min/maxed SW list will surely spell a victory for the poor player.

Using your example, had taken better choices (not vanquishers,flamer vets) you would have done better.

Ultimately,bringing a sub-optimal list to a truly competitive tournament will surely see you nowhere near the top. We also dont know what your local meta is like and how good the players are, so its all relative and subjective.

Honestly i applaud your ability to take a list different from a cookie-cutter (take only the very best units in my codex and ignore the rest) list.
People are convinced that their list, and the units within are the only ones worth taking

Just sounds like those guys were kinda dicks. I've never taunted anyone over the units they've taken in their list.
I'm sure that any unit in any codex has synergy with other units there to make them more effective.

Take flayed ones for necrons, largely regarded as worthless, but combined with a few other units, can be extremely nasty.

I still take a monolith in my army, despite everyone saying it's been nerfed too much, and it won me a game against nids this last weekend, reaping at least twice its value in points.

KplKeegan wrote:people were amazed that my 'weak' units beat thiers.

I've gotten this a lot over the years. The way to win is to innovate, and the way to innovate is to think differently, and do things differently. It's true for life, and it's true for 40k as well. Human brains are designed to "cheat", and one of those ways of cheating is to find patterns, and then doggedly cling to them. The same process that causes people to be intolerant in the field of religion or other worldview, is the same for smaller things too. At least the people at your LGS didn't plant a burning cross on your lawn or fly a plane into your house.

The best way to handle this is to really know your stuff, and then to win. Being articulate allows you to be in dialogue with reasonable people, and winning will shut up all the lemmings.

Remember, just as people deride you now, the same personality will turn them into fanboys of what you say later...

As Ailaros says, sometimes creating a list no one has seen before can push the game greatly in your favor. If you are unpredictable, you can count on doing well.

For example, I recently brought 60 Necron Warriors and no vehicles to a game where my opponent was expecting me to bring a ton of vehicles. Ahh, good times.

bit of both. Think of it as a handicap in that you are sacrificing an optimum in your list for a less optimum unit. You can build a perfectly serviceable list if you understand how everything will work together, but you also have to understand and recognize you are giving a handicap and make the conscious decision of the size of the handicap and how your list will compensate.

Thing is though, what people think of as an underpowered unit can vary widely, they may actually be very effective, but might cost 20 points more then an alternative that they are compared to. sometimes that 20 points can make a major difference. An upgrade, a piece of war gear and extra guy. However, its rare that the entire game will come down to that 20 points. The flip side though is people often get so caught up with what is the absolute best they fail to consider how other units might actually be beneficial so they underestimate them. A vehicle instead of infantry where they expect infantry. Speed where they expect static, a hard unit instead of flankers. IF you know your list and understand how to make the most out of it, you can get a lot of mileage out of the unexpected. Even in a competitive situation playing against a very maximized list, the handicap is often small enough that its not horribly noticeable once the game starts. A good or bad role of the dice can easily have more effect.

Of course, some units plain out lack effectiveness. In that case, its not a matter of how you support those units, its how you compensate for those units in the rest of your list and in your tactics. In those cases rather then a few points handicap, you may be giving away nearly an entire units worth of effectiveness. If thats the case, you can think of it in terms of your opponent maybe having 2000 points and you only have 1850, winnable but much tougher. Those units will never be a total waste of points, but they might be close. Take two or three of these though, and the game can be very tough, think 1500 points vs 2000.

However, These can be very fun games because it forces you to adopt gambits you might not otherwise take to overcome that handicap. You can see very quickly where these units might doom the inexperienced or tactically weak, but a good player can often take them and make a good game out of it. Of course in a friendly game, you might find both sides are playing around and you'll see some odd things pop up. Luckily, there aren't a huge amount of these units to worry about. More often its a matter of poorly selecting units for roles they aren't suited for which comes back to the general. In that situation, its no longer the army's fault but the list makers.

It's the mindset that Keegan went up against that is greatly adding to my "40K fatigue". Even here on Dakka, it seems like 75% of the players that respond to someting will vocally bash anything that goes against the cookie-cutter lists that are the "optimal builds".

Ugh. I hate it, and I am repeatedly glad that I only game with a couple of close friends who play for the fun of it, rather than a gaming club where I would have to constantly deal with nay-sayers who, because they are nerds, incidentally lack any kind of positive social skills.

Are we talking about uncommon unit/list performance or how much of the game is determined by your list and how much by your generalship? Cause those are kinda two separate issues.

It about how good a "general" the player is, versus using "proven winning army builds" as a crutch.

As in: is it the skill of the player, or just the strong units that are winning the games?

Actinium wrote:Are we talking about uncommon unit/list performance or how much of the game is determined by your list and how much by your generalship? Cause those are kinda two separate issues.

Its the latter.

A sub-par unit can still have a leg up over units that it counters, and the correct application of a unit tactically or the inability of a commander to leverage a given advantage can easily turn a battle.

It's obviously a combination of both. You can't win a match with a list completely composed of Grots

Your opponents must have rolled really poorly/You must have rolled really well.

Anything can happen when dice are involved...

TedNugent wrote:A sub-par unit can still have a leg up over units that it counters, and the correct application of a unit tactically or the inability of a commander to leverage a given advantage can easily turn a battle.

It's obviously a combination of both. You can't win a match with a list completely composed of Grots

Lol I am suddenly inclined to make some sort of insale grot list just to see what would happen. Grots and grot handlers + HQ ok right?

Some units are inherently better than others, it's just that public opinion is wrong on a lot of it.
Just because you can win without melta vets, doesn't mean melta vets aren't still a stronger choice.

sudojoe wrote:

TedNugent wrote:A sub-par unit can still have a leg up over units that it counters, and the correct application of a unit tactically or the inability of a commander to leverage a given advantage can easily turn a battle.

It's obviously a combination of both. You can't win a match with a list completely composed of Grots

Lol I am suddenly inclined to make some sort of insale grot list just to see what would happen. Grots and grot handlers + HQ ok right?

and Zzap guns, lots and lots of Zzap guns

AegisGrimm wrote:It's the mindset that Keegan went up against that is greatly adding to my "40K fatigue". Even here on Dakka, it seems like 75% of the players that respond to someting will vocally bash anything that goes against the cookie-cutter lists that are the "optimal builds".

Well, firstly, there are a lot more players now than there were in the past, which means you're going to get more bad seeds, and more sociological principles at play.

Secondly, it's probably apt to compare 40k to fantasy sport. Something with lots of numbers, variables, and combinations. I've never seen people get so violently bitter and angry at each other (apart from reading early communist party manuscripts - splittist!) than people bickering over the tinist things on fantasy sports roster. 40k has tapped into something primeval.

Thirdly, as you note, you're more likely to pick up people with bad social skills. For example, speaking from experience, complex systems (like 40k) draw people with autism to them like moths to the flame - said people, of course, having genetic problems with sociability.

AegisGrimm wrote:Ugh. I hate it, and I am repeatedly glad that I only game with a couple of close friends who play for the fun of it, rather than a gaming club where I would have to constantly deal with nay-sayers who, because they are nerds, incidentally lack any kind of positive social skills.

Like any large social system, that's really the best you can do. I may personally disagree with hardcore christians, for example, but there are a few I absolutely adore. It's just a matter of finding diamonds in the rough.

To think, though, that it's a problem unique to 40k and that all you need to do is quit 40k to get relief from crazy people, well... that's setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.

Its the general. I have recently had a Tac Termy with PF punch a shadowsword to death turn 2, a Tau Battleforce and XV8 commander eat 10 pallies and a Psyfleman (not me playing, was a friend), and win regularly with Nids.

A quote from Alexander the great! "An army of sheep led by a lion are more to be feared than an army of lions led by a sheep"

By far the general is more important than the list. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your units and your opponents, in addition to catching him offguard will do wonders. All war is deception, even in the far future.

I love steamrolling people with my extreme elite list whilst they chastise me for taking Sanguinary Guard and Death Company as Troops.

Anyway, the general is more important than the actual army. As in, any fool can build up a Draigowing army and then obliterate other players of a simple army, but it takes a real tactician to fight using "weak" units and destroy other enemies. Just because it isn't obvious doesn't make it useless.

It really boils down to generalship in my experience with 40k, you can have a superb list but if you play it like gak your going to be on the reciving end of a beatdown.

40k is half about the list, half about the general, and 100% about the dice rolls.

juraigamer wrote:40k is half about the list, half about the general, and 100% about the dice rolls.

QFT.

War.is all about having the right weapon in the right place and the right time. Even the most destructive.weapons of war are useless if absent from the field of battle-Codex Space Marines

I agree. But withkut a general those guns won't be requisitioned or fired.

Testify wrote:Some units are inherently better than others, it's just that public opinion is wrong on a lot of it.
Just because you can win without melta vets, doesn't mean melta vets aren't still a stronger choice.

I'm not really understanding your statement.

Stronger to whom? If I can win without melta vets, why should I care if their a stronger choice or not?

Well it is al ittle of both actually , yes units do have something to do with it , stronger units have an easier time surviveing mistakes but you must be a good general as well --- Take a unit of Grey Knight Crusaders ( i think thats what they are called ) if they are going in a pysker duel against 2 Pysker Battle Squads led by a Primaris then they will get fried like a damn cockroach on a bug zapper by soul storm and pysker lighting . But if they did something smart like Charge or get help they could win -- True story bro --