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.

IIRC, 10 Reapers would be 370 pts, and a Wraithlord would be another 100+ pts. 500 pts doesn't leave enough points for the mandatory HQ & 2 Troops.

Perhaps you can clarify?

Now, you *could* take 1 legal 500-pt army with 3 Wraithlords, but that isn't what you're talking about...

It'd actually be pretty easy.

Farseer - 40pts
Wraithlord - 75pts
10 Dark Reapers - 370pts

You'd still have 15 to play around with even.

You need a couple Troops to go with the Farseer, along with the Farseer's power.

Well, what'dya know. Mindwar is exactly 15pts. Sounds like we've got a 500 list!

My second post here on Dakka, but thought I might chime in:

I wouldn't necessarily say that a competitive list is automatically viewed in a negative light. But I would say you should bring a list that fits the context of the event (since the OP was referring to a tournament setting). If you're playing in an event like 'Ard Boyz or the Gladiator, then yes bring the absolute toughest, number crunching monster list you can. However, if you're playing in a narrative or a "hobby" tournament (with painting and sportsman added in), it might not be the right place for it.

Now, don't take me wrong, I'm saying to take a "gimp" list. You can still bring something competitive, but I would say to leave the absolute monster list out of it. There are plenty of competitive lists that can be made without the stigma of being "cheesy" or "invincible".

The same thing goes for friendly / pick up games. You should play a list according to your context. If it's just a random pick up game, it's no fun to get completely tabled just because you brought a different army case that particular Tuesday or whatever. And on the other side of the spectrum, winning a game without any challenge seems rather hollow to me. However, you could ask your opponent what he has or what kind of game he's looking for. Maybe you could find the guy that has a monster list that day and play him. Get a game that'd be worth playing.

If you're planning a game with a friend, I would hope you discuss what kind of game to have. If you want to have 'Ard Boyz practice, go for it. But a fun and quirky or narrative game can be a nice break from hardcore tournament gaming. Do remember, it is okay to have fun once in a while.

RxGhost wrote:Well, what'dya know. Mindwar is exactly 15pts. Sounds like we've got a 500 list!

Why are you ignoring the force org chart?

Just put your competative lists/tactics in the Army List/Tactic forums. Your threads aren't going to be corrupted by the less competative threads.

RxGhost wrote:It'd actually be pretty easy.

Farseer - 40pts
Wraithlord - 75pts
10 Dark Reapers - 370pts

You'd still have 15 to play around with even.

Wow, what a list.
Its not a thread about army lists, its about a board for competitve army lists.

I'm not ignoring anything...how soon we have all forgotten...CRAFTWORLD ELDAR!

I was simply using this list as an example of a competitive list that's not fun to play against. I mean, that IS what's being discussed in here no?

I think it all comes down to what a person thinks is a fun game, for me its having a challenge, a game against a casaul gamer is pretty boring for me cause i just cant help but destroy him.

But what if everyone took "Power builds" then there the game would be based on tactics. If one person bring a power build and another brings a casaul list, then most of the time the games over before its started. You getting me here? When two people play and there lists are built different (Like a list built for fun and a power build) Then it all goes down to the list kinda (But there is always tactics in 40k!)

So i think everyone should stop argueing and start using power builds (Even if you gonna play casaully) Cause then there is always gonna be tactics and skill involved.

Imagine if everyone played the good units and no-one played gak units then GW would probaly get rid of the crappy units.

I still feel like there's this disconnect somewhere.

It's not like people build lists they think are going to be bad, they just may choose units that don't work with their army build or play style.

It's like playing a fighting game with someone who's less experienced. It's no fun for me to just stomp them out, so I vary my tactics in response to make a more enjoyable experience for my opponent and myself.

Anyone who thinks the people who won round 2 of Ard Boyz did so only because of thier lists is either not paying attention or so bitter about thier loss that they are not thinking clearly. (Yes I was at round 2, yes I lost, yes it was because the other guy played better than me!)

The whole point of Ard Boyz is for EVERYONE to bring their A game. There were no fluffy weak lists at Ard Boyz and everyone at the top 10 tables was playing a "powerbuild"

Gues what, that means that the games were decieded on how well the players played againt the scenarior and the opponent.

Thats how it should be, and why I only enjoy tournament games and tournament practice. Anything else bores me to tears.

I make that clear when I show up at the shop or club. " Anyone looking for a tournament game?" is always my first line. If anyone asks me for a casual pickup game I just point them in the direction of the other fluff players.

Everyone knows what I play when I show up so there are no misunderstandngs.

Something which stuck me; there seems to be a division between "Tournament Players" (who, in the stereotype, play to win and design their armies to do just than and have NOTHING in their armies which cannot justify its place with effectiveness) and those who "play who have fun" (and who, in the stereotype, don't care how stuff performs but just want to have fun). There is a continuum, of course, but these are the two poles.

Okay, two questions;

i) Can someone define "fun"? For a tournament player, that means beating the opponent and winning. So ... how is a tournament player NOT playing "for fun" when he plays to win? How is he NOT playing according to the spirit of the rules (which are, to have fun?)

ii) What is the problem with a powerbuild army facing a completely fluff army? The power gamer will win (most likely) and the fluff guy will get a game. Unless the powergamer is TOTALLY peeved about facing some soft little dude, what is the problem?

The purely fluff player isn't playing to win, right? He's just playing to "have fun"?

Can we have definition of "having fun"? I think this will show the entire argument against powerbuilds to be weak. There are no powerbuilds - there are armies which are more effective. And choosing your army list IS part of the strategy of wargames - if you don't like that aspect of wargames, play Chess!

i find that most people suck at the game and can't realize when they've been beaten by tactics...

How many people have heard "man my dice were off..." or "you've got a beardy list!" when in fact it was your opponents poor tactical choices that hurt him? yea.... i've seen that more than once...

The fact of the matter is, that most people have an issue with pride where they feel

1) that they are a good player
2) that only bad dice/cheaters/overpowered combos can beat them...

seriously guys. Play better. Tactics make this game. If you get out of your damned rhino in front of my blood crushers... what do you think is going to happen?

Is it wrong that people feel they are good players? NO. Not at all. But they need to admit when it was poor tacitcal choices that killed them.

Mark parker kicked my butt down at the necro. I am fully willing to admit that I am one of the better players in my area... but I made 4-5 poor tactical calls that day that made me lose.

It wasn't the dice.
His list wasn't cheesy

Straight up, he outplayed me.

Moz beat me at the Baltimore GT to knock me down from 2nd over all to 14th over all.

He Outplayed me. I made mistakes.

I think there would be less crying if other people could recognize/admit, when they got beat by a better player.

frgsinwntr wrote:If you get out of your damned rhino in front of my blood crushers... what do you think is going to happen?

Oooo! Oooo! I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me!

Ahem. Your blood will get crushed.

RxGhost wrote:
It's not like people build lists they think are going to be bad, they just may choose units that don't work with their army build or play style.

Around here, you get bullied into doing just that.

Everyone is different.

Players play the game for different reasons.

Some to win, some to have fun, some to do a bit of both. (OMG!)

What I think is.. if you're playing in a tournament, of course you are playing to WIN.

If you're playing a buddy's house or at the local game store - you can choose who you want to play or what you want to play or how you want to play, etc..

Don't give someone grief over an army that just stomped you - it was you that decided to play against that army in the first place.

I for one love playing these 'competitive' / 'maxed out' lists with one that's more balanced - because it gives me good 'battle/tabletop' experience against these types of lists for a time in the future where I may decide to hit up a tournament. To me - the fun is figuring out how to counter "A" game and the thrill of victory should my 'inferior' army beat the odds.

RxGhost wrote: I was simply using this list as an example of a competitive list that's not fun to play against. I mean, that IS what's being discussed in here no?

Yeah, but at time, 3 Wraithlords in 500 points will raise more hackles than your WL & 10 Reaper force.

Also, that 3 WL force will completely wreck the army you proposed, although you might have the satisfaction of clearing a couple throwaway units of Guardians.

I'm pretty sure that 3 wraithlords would not 'completly wreck' the force I proposed. Those reapers will probably kill one of your wraithlords each turn, and I have the luxury of range, and I can wade into your guardians with my two flamers. My farseer will then contact Eldrad who will 'convince' a Tyranid hive fleet to converge on your craftworld, 'completly wrecking' it.

I will teleport up and dance in the blood and the bodies of the fallen and Slaaaaanesh will be appeased!

Nah, you should average 2 wounds on Wraithlords each turn, but Wraithlords have 3 wounds each. While you might have range, I'd have cover.

So there.

frgsinwntr wrote:i find that most people suck at the game and can't realize when they've been beaten by tactics...

How many people have heard "man my dice were off..." or "you've got a beardy list!" when in fact it was your opponents poor tactical choices that hurt him? yea.... i've seen that more than once...

The fact of the matter is, that most people have an issue with pride where they feel

1) that they are a good player
2) that only bad dice/cheaters/overpowered combos can beat them...

seriously guys. Play better. Tactics make this game. If you get out of your damned rhino in front of my blood crushers... what do you think is going to happen?

Is it wrong that people feel they are good players? NO. Not at all. But they need to admit when it was poor tacitcal choices that killed them.

Mark parker kicked my butt down at the necro. I am fully willing to admit that I am one of the better players in my area... but I made 4-5 poor tactical calls that day that made me lose.

It wasn't the dice.
His list wasn't cheesy

Straight up, he outplayed me.

Moz beat me at the Baltimore GT to knock me down from 2nd over all to 14th over all.

He Outplayed me. I made mistakes.

I think there would be less crying if other people could recognize/admit, when they got beat by a better player.

QFT squared!!!

Same here, I am not 5-1 at Ard Boyz because my oppnent had a "better list" than me, or because "my dice failed me" or anything other than the simple fact that my opponent in round three made no mistakes, and I made several.

He played better, he won.

Thinking about it, in 15 years of playing 40k I can not think of a single game where I lost a game that I would not have been able to win with better Strategy (list design) or Tactics ( on board play )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Take what you like, but don't be a tool about it.

Possibly the sanest statement I've ever seen on this topic. Well done JHDD

Lord-Loss wrote:

So i think everyone should stop arguing and start using power builds (Even if you gonna play casaully) Cause then there is always gonna be tactics and skill involved.

Imagine if everyone played the good units and no-one played gak units then GW would probaly get rid of the crappy units.

QFT

One thing I've noticed is that people usually won't care that much about your army composition if you are a good sport, don't bend rules, and generally try to help less skilled players who aren't as good as you. If you try to just stomp an opponent, argue incessantly over minor rules questions, fudge movement distances, then people will dislike you and your army. People aren't bothered so much by a good player, they ARE bothered by people who would rather try to win through cheating and arguing, then by winning by playing the game well.

Lord-Loss wrote:So i think everyone should stop arguing and start using power builds (Even if you gonna play casaully) Cause then there is always gonna be tactics and skill involved.

Imagine if everyone played the good units and no-one played gak units then GW would probaly get rid of the crappy units

Nope. GW's goal isn't to make an army where any unit is viable, their goal is to make new, expensive units more appealing so you will buy them.

You'd think so, but then the chaos codex came out with new kits for possessed and chaos spawn...

ph34r wrote:Nope. GW's goal isn't to make an army where any unit is viable, their goal is to make new, expensive units more appealing so you will buy them.

You mean like the nerfed Wraithlord?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ph34r wrote:Nope. GW's goal isn't to make an army where any unit is viable, their goal is to make new, expensive units more appealing so you will buy them.

You mean like the nerfed Wraithlord?

Hey now, I didn't say that GW knows what they're doing. I'm sure they thought the new possessed and chaos spawn were good in rules. They did a lot of awful things in the CSM codex. The new wraithlord only sucks compared to what it used to be because 4th and 5th edition aren't like 3rd where you punch out the powerfist and have a field day with the rest of the squad. Most big new plastic kits are better in rules than their old versions.

The 'nerfed' Wraithlord is actually a terrible example. GW are still of the mindset that the Wraithlord is seen as overpowered. Never mind the fact that the Wraithlord hasn't been overpowered since the Trail Assault Rules in 3rd Ed, but GW is really bad at balancing things when it matters, and usually does it an edition or two too late.

There will never be an end to this discussion because there are 2 types of gamers:

1. Casual players: "Hey, mate. Wanna have a go at a Warhammer 40,000 game?"

2. Tourny Players (me included): "Hey, mate. Wanna get your ass stomped by <insert competitive list>? lol"

Because there are such wide gaps in dedication to winning/having fun, there cannot be a deffinate answer to which playstyle is better.

Though I recognize that some people would rather play a "fun" game... I do not understand how you would not try to win in everything you do!!! Winning = fun, right? lol

My life is sad though, last game night I beat 2500pt tau with my IG in 3 turns. No one wanted to play me after that :(






But damn was it funny seeing his face when he had absolutely no way to destroy a vehicle LoL XD FEAR THE EARTHSHAKER!!!! (1 unit destroyed, 2 others ran off the table lol)

Nenya97 wrote:There will never be an end to this discussion because there are 2 types of gamers:

1. Casual players: "Hey, mate. Wanna have a go at a Warhammer 40,000 game?"

2. Tourny Players (me included): "Hey, mate. Wanna get your ass stomped by <insert competitive list>? lol"

There are more types of gamers than just those two.