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.

I think taken more generally, Timmah's point is interesting to say the least. I've been playing various CCGs competitively for years now and the information and incite on deckbuilding and playing those games is much more readily available to anyone who wants it. The top players enjoy sharing these things and increasing the level of competition around them. I've always found the 40k community to be much more closed off and in many ways "elitist" (I use this term somewhat loosely but it definitely seems like information travels through certain circles without making it to the masses, sortof like telling a secret) in terms of sharing experience and knowledgable information. I can think of exceptions to this of course, but not very many. I guess it often looks like the better 40k players really enjoy placing themselves above the rest so they aren't as forward with allowing people to learn from them.

That said, I think people who just rip a list off the internet and then try to play with it are practically never going to see huge success with it. We all have a different style and different way we like to play the game, and the list needs to be tailored to the player in order for him to really get the most out o it, not the other way around. Blackmoor's Eldar army from a few weeks ago is a prime example of this, as is the army that won 'ardboyz. Most eople claim these lists are mediocre at best, but they were both devastating in the hands of their respesctive players. Different things will work for different people and often times the player better equipped to win the game will be the one with a more complete understanding of his list and how it works within the game. I see lots of locals around me start new armies frequently because they get frustrated that that they aren't winning enough with their current armies. They change armies every few months and wonder why they're never recording a win percentage that they want to. To me this is in large part because they aren't comfortable with what they are playing and because they don't really understand what they're putting on the table, they're unable to maximize its effectiveness. It really is crucial to have an intricate understanding of how the game works in general as well as a very thorough knowledge of how your specific army works. Also very important is knowing how the opposing army works to the greatest degree possible. I really think experience is rather key to success in 40k.

I really liked Deadshane's post, I think his sentiments are very similar to mine on this one (at least in that post lol).

EDIT: just saw Blackmoor's last post as well and I think he's got it right on when he's talking about the personal style and preferences of individual players and how they affect their ability to play different types of lists.

I will have to check out this Ford Focus RS but wouldn't they be two different cars entirely? Sport vs Luxury? I have a A4 AWD currently and I would have to see the Ford RS in person before I could give me view even Though Would like to see a trick out Audi A4 vs a trick out Ford Focus RS 4

You need to more than test out a list to see if its valid. You are going to need to learn it inside and out over the course of a lot of games.

As I said before this is tough due to the time consuming nature of our hobby. In MTG, you can take a decklist, play a ton of games and find out how good you are with it in a week or 2. Ofc even then it takes months to master.

In 40k You are going to need to scale this up by a huge amount. (unless you can casually play 5-10 games a day/weekend for about 2 months straight) To really become comfortable with a 40k army you will probably need to play with it for a couple months. So tbh, unless you guys have tried Stelek's lists, learned the tactics behind them and then played with them for 6+ months, I think you really are writing his ideas off way too fast.

But, what do I know, I have never won one of those big fancy tournaments. I just play the local scrubs who are bad because they are local...

Blackmoor wrote:
Do you know what my theory is? That people who depend on the hardest lists to win are new players who are often a little deficient in the skill arena and they use those lists to make up for their short comings. So what happens is that they win by over powering their local opponents and they don't learn good fundamental tactics so when they get to large tournaments they end up getting out-played by people who are better players.

But I do think you are wrong with thinking that having a good player playing one of those lists would do even better. I think we all have strengths and weaknesses in our play styles, and we need to play an army that works well with them. For me it is a shooting army and I do poorly with an assault army. On the other hand, I play team tournaments games with Bill K. and he is very aggressive, and he loves assault armies.
To give you an example, Bill plays his Demonhunter army as an assault army, and I like to sit back with psycannons and shoot. We do well with each style that we like, but if we switched armies, I have a feeling that we would both not do as well. So I guess what I am saying is that if you put a random good list in even a good players hands, they would not do as well as one that they have crafted around their play style.

This. A friend of mine just started playing in events, and I set him up with a cookie cutter chaos list. Once he starts playing more he can tailor it. But its a crutch. I was the same way with my old flying circus eldar army. As I said, the best people often do things their own way. This way might be completely contrary to common methods, but it still produces success for them. And its often who you play that makes the different. If you are playing against Bill Kim regularly you are probably going to be doing better then me. I dont have anyone who plays at his level where I live. I cant expect he would let mistakes slide that other people do. So you learn functional tactics, and its just playing for your style best.

I dont believe that there are elite circles who wont share gaming secrets with the world. I have a copy of an ork army list Marc Parker used at adepticon, he gave it to me prior to smashing my face in with said army. But harder groups of players will be better. Just because they play better people. They build off each other socially. It doesnt matter what list they are running. If i played blackmoors eldar or marcs sisters of bill kims demonhunters 5 games in a row id learn more then i would playing 10 games against internet build x run by an average gamer. Its all about maximizing what you can do with your army.

I am a very conservative player. In the words of Al Pacino "you never open your mouth until you know you have the shot". I dont like taking chances with my gaming. The dice do that for me. So I run mech eldar. Not because its the hottest internet trend, but because it lets me pick my battles. That speed is the biggest asset. I ideally dont have to fight you if I dont want to, I pick the battles. I built the army list around this idea. Not around eldrad/yriel/council plus other stuff to fill up points. And this is the first step to being good at anything, is knowing your own limits. Not what your army can do, but what it cant, and how to make it work the best.

Timmah wrote:You need to more than test out a list to see if its valid. You are going to need to learn it inside and out over the course of a lot of games.

As I said before this is tough due to the time consuming nature of our hobby. In MTG, you can take a decklist, play a ton of games and find out how good you are with it in a week or 2. Ofc even then it takes months to master.

In 40k You are going to need to scale this up by a huge amount. (unless you can casually play 5-10 games a day/weekend for about 2 months straight) To really become comfortable with a 40k army you will probably need to play with it for a couple months. So tbh, unless you guys have tried Stelek's lists, learned the tactics behind them and then played with them for 6+ months, I think you really are writing his ideas off way too fast.

But, what do I know, I have never won one of those big fancy tournaments. I just play the local scrubs who are bad because they are local...

Timmah there is a great bit on 40k radio talking about how many test games we played just for Adepticon between Jwolf and I. Jwolf said we tally up around 500 + games over three months just to try and test list out. We have played with these list way before he came out with this sort of list and tagged them his own. I think you are missing the point of people have their own play styles and those list don't work for everyone.

You make it sound like Stelek is 100% right and his tactics are completely correct and he can do nothing wrong? isn't that a double standard you kind of have here Timmah? A lot of these players that you call out such as Blackmoor, Bill Kim, Greg sparks, GBF, Hod, Gareth, Marc Parker, Neil, Brian, DeadShane They all play a lot of games and I would bet most of us play 3-5 games a week so we have a feeling what works for us and what doesn't work for us. if it doesn't work for us we have to get called bullheaded by people like you?

What is ridiculous about this statement is that in EVERY other competitive game, the "pros" always use the best things. In MTG they play the best decks, in WC3 they use the best races (so very few pro UD players), In Halo they use the most effective weapons.

No one gimps themselves in order to play better. They just practice constantly, best vs best. No one holds any punches back.

Yes there each person has strengths and weaknesses, that would tweek your game slightly. But you wouldn't play an terrible deck because your good with it or it fits your playstyle.

Ofc you could be on the verge of a breakthrough that no one has ever thought of in a competitive environment.

Maybe football players should stop wearing cleats because it makes them too comfortable with the advantage they provide?


@darkwynn: I said stelek was the exact same way. Very bull headed and always thinking his way is the only way. (again you try and label me as a stelek flunky to try and invalidate my opinion) However, he would probably agree to that where as you come in here and try and pretend you aren't.

On the other side, a lot of the other players play just as many games as you and it (mech) works for them and foot doesn't. So obviously 1 or both (more likely both) sides are being slightly dishonest when they talk about how much they tested said lists. If you really are a well rounded good player, you should be able to pick up any list and play well with it. Not just one tailored for your preferences.

Darkwynn wrote:I will have to check out this Ford Focus RS but wouldn't they be two different cars entirely? Sport vs Luxury? I have a A4 AWD currently and I would have to see the Ford RS in person before I could give me view even Though Would like to see a trick out Audi A4 vs a trick out Ford Focus RS 4

Absolutely, they're very different cars. I'm just impressed by it, which basically never happens with a Ford product haha. I also do a lot of racing (legal, on road courses like VIR, Summit Point, etc) so I tend to be more interested in the performance side of things.

Ironically, this sortof illustrates my point. Personal preference goes a long way to dictating the positive or negative experience with the car. I might like the Focus RS because its more of a performance car (FWD FTL though lol) as opposed to the luxury/highline style of the A4 (my good friend has one right now and its a stunning car for the money, VAG has really stepped it up in the past 3 years). As an example I'm a lot more comfortable driving my S2000 around (twitchy, somewhat quick sports car) than I am the A4 (feels sluggish and unresponsive to me, I feel like I have less control over it) but my friend is the opposite. I let him drive my car once and he absolutely hated it. He said he didn't feel in comfortable with the mannerisms of my car. As another example, I drove a buddy's S2000 at an autocross earlier this year instead of my own. He beat me when we were both driving his car, but I beat him when we both drove my car at a later event. He's clearly much more potent behind the wheel of his car, because he has it tuned and setup to his personal preferences and style as a driver. Same goes for me with my car. Both cars are 2003 S2000s but they have different setups (alignment, FSB and tires are different... my car oversteers a bit more than his by design) You can now apply that to trying to pilot armies of different types and builds around a 40k table. You'll be much more effective playing a list you're more comfortable with and understand better.

@Timmah: Yes, the learning curve is much more severe for 40k than it is with something like MTG or L5R and I defintiely agree that playing A LOT is really the only way to get GOOD at 40k. There is however a PILE of very useful information available to anyone who wants to take games like MTG seriously, which drastically reduces the learning curve for those games. I'm the type of person who likes to try and figure things out for myself usually, so I neglect a lot of this information. I find that I eventually arrive at very similar conclusions to the very successful players writing the articles and such, but it takes me far longer. Sure, reading it is a lot different than applying it, that should be a given. Reading it makes you think about it though, which will lead to finding the application quicker and generally learning faster. Absorbing and using the information and experience of others in conjunction with playing a lot will make you a better player much faster than just playing a lot will. I also don't think its possible to become a good player by reading everything and not playing much. Application is the most important part of the process.

Damn you are dense Timmah. Do you actually read posts and arguments or do you just keep smashing your head on the keyboard in hope your neurons produce something logical. Its the same with that other thread. I defeated an argument you made, you replied by repeating the argument.

You are mistaken that any 40k 'pro' gimps himself by not running T3H UBER ARMEEZ OF DEATH!!!!111

All your above examples are stupid. Heres why.
MTG is a completely different system, thats like asking why people dont wear football helmets to play baseball.

In halo you have very few choices. I got up to the upper 40s in MLG, you have a whole lot of options. In many maps is BR, with a sniper and a mauler on the map. And its a team game.

In football its also a team game, and not wearing cleats is equivalent to not running any troop choices in a 40k army.

By team game you are not on your own. In 40k you are. Its me vs my opponent. Not me and 10 other guys vs 11 people. So my ARMY has to funcion as a team. And it comes down to what works for you.

Heres a question. I fething love cheese. So im making spaghetti for dinner. Should I, on my plate of spaghetti, dump an entire can of parmesan over my red sauce and meatballs because I love it? No, thats dumb. The meal has to function as a whole. And thats what it comes down to.

Uh dude. You just posted that it was bad people used the best lists to win because it hurt them in the future because they were being carried by their list.

Now your changing your argument and calling me stupid for proving your last one false... I really don't know what to tell you.

Once again you see words but dont understand. Bad people win games with the 'best' lists, yes. By best I mean they operate in a vacuum. On paper my mech eldar would probably destroy blackmoors eldar. Nobody is arguing about that. And most players would do better with mechdar then moordar.

However, here is the crux of the argument, I have stated that on paper does not beat player style. And that you have to discover how you play the game to win. So while in a vacuum mechdar>moordar, in practice blackmoor>most people. Because he is comfortable with his army.

So yes, bad kids can do good against other bad kids with copypaste army lists. But as I had stated the really good players just run what they use best.

Theres more to words then sounds you know, then again I wouldnt have been arguing your argument when I was 14 too.

So in conclusion, why are people winning with 'bad armies'. Because they are advanced players, and arent concerned with your theory hammer.

I think that is the problem with the "Best of" Lists... they require you to adapt to their playstyle. I think that is a harder thing to do than to tweak your list to fit your own playstyle.

You say that the pros use "the best" in other systems. If that was the case, every single person would theoretically use the exact same deck/list as it was "the best". What if "the best" is more than the list, but also the fit? If we want to use the sports analogies, you would notice that each baseball player uses different bats. There is no one "best" bat... each one uses the one that feels "best" TO HIM. I think the same thing applies to lists. I could try and make my arms grow longer so I could use "the uber bat" (aka the Best Of lists) or I could find a bat that works for my arm length. Which one is more effective?

They do however use the best of steroids in baseball.

Very true about comfort levels with lists. However a truly good player should be able to adapt to a "best on paper" list and make it work much more than his current list. Yes it might take 6 more months to become comfortable with it, but they will play better in the long run.

That is why in sports like football you are taught quality fundamentals. The best athletes don't just go with what works for them, they learn the best fundamentals. And since they are such good athletes both will (in theory) work for them. However the better "on paper" fundamentals will win in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

You say that the pros use "the best" in other systems. If that was the case, every single person would theoretically use the exact same deck/list as it was "the best". What if "the best" is more than the list, but also the fit? If we want to use the sports analogies, you would notice that each baseball player uses different bats. There is no one "best" bat... each one uses the one that feels "best" TO HIM. I think the same thing applies to lists. I could try and make my arms grow longer so I could use "the uber bat" (aka the Best Of lists) or I could find a bat that works for my arm length. Which one is more effective?

You mean like every/most starcraft pros use the same build orders depending on what army they are facing? Same with WC3.

BTW, there can be more than 1 of "the best" lists. Just like in other game systems there are more than 1 the best. My argument was that you don't gimp your playskill by using one of these armies/lists.

Timmah wrote:That is why in sports like football you are taught quality fundamentals. The best athletes don't just go with what works for them, they learn the best fundamentals. And since they are such good athletes both will (in theory) work for them. However the better "on paper" fundamentals will win in the long run.

I think Tim Tebow and many other athletes would disagree with you on this. Tim Tebow will never be a pocket passer. If he worked the next 4 years on becoming a pocket passer, he would probably still be less effective than what he is now. Yes, fundamentals are great. But you can't turn an apple into an orange. For 40k, I would argue that fundamentals of list building includes staying away from the obviously stupid units in a codex (Flash Gits anyone?). The other things you do should try to play to your strengths.

You mean like every/most starcraft pros use the same build orders depending on what army they are facing? Same with WC3.

BTW, there can be more than 1 of "the best" lists. Just like in other game systems there are more than 1 the best. My argument was that you don't gimp your playskill by using one of these armies/lists.

By definition, if one list is "best", the others are suboptimal. Same with build orders, etc. If there was one to rule them all, it would be the only one used. The fact that there is not means that there must be some sort of interaction between the player and the list that causes certain decks/lists/build-orders/etc to be better or worse for certain people.

See... I disagree with a player changing to fit a list. I don't like that. I'm going to use soccer as an exmaple here because its what I know best: Say I take over as coach of Chelsea FC. Am I going to pick a formation and style of play, and then force my players into those tactics whether or not they actually fit how my players play the game? The easy answer here is hell no. I'm going to examine how their style, how they act and play the game, and I'm going utilize a system that they can be comfortable operating in. I'm going to optimize their strengths by designing a system based around what they can and can't do.

I could force them into an awkward formation and set of tactics that don't fit their personality on the pitch and make them learn and adapt but the curve will be tremendously high and they'll pretty much never quite get to grips with it the way they would with something that they can operate within more naturally.

Yes, the best athletes learn fundamentals. They learn the basics and aquire the necessary skills. They won't be phenominal at ALL of the skills though, and they won't aquire a COMPLETE understanding of every position on the field. Each player will have a natural affinity for something, and a smart coach will put the player in positions to maximize the player's positive tendencies in that position. You can't just take a fantastic quarterback and tell him "hey go play safety" and then expect him to be a tremendous safety. He won't be that amazing in that position at all.

IMO the list should fit the player, not the player force the list.

Caffran9 wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:I will have to check out this Ford Focus RS but wouldn't they be two different cars entirely? Sport vs Luxury? I have a A4 AWD currently and I would have to see the Ford RS in person before I could give me view even Though Would like to see a trick out Audi A4 vs a trick out Ford Focus RS 4

Absolutely, they're very different cars. I'm just impressed by it, which basically never happens with a Ford product haha. I also do a lot of racing (legal, on road courses like VIR, Summit Point, etc) so I tend to be more interested in the performance side of things.

Ironically, this sortof illustrates my point. Personal preference goes a long way to dictating the positive or negative experience with the car. I might like the Focus RS because its more of a performance car (FWD FTL though lol) as opposed to the luxury/highline style of the A4 (my good friend has one right now and its a stunning car for the money, VAG has really stepped it up in the past 3 years). As an example I'm a lot more comfortable driving my S2000 around (twitchy, somewhat quick sports car) than I am the A4 (feels sluggish and unresponsive to me, I feel like I have less control over it) but my friend is the opposite. I let him drive my car once and he absolutely hated it. He said he didn't feel in comfortable with the mannerisms of my car. As another example, I drove a buddy's S2000 at an autocross earlier this year instead of my own. He beat me when we were both driving his car, but I beat him when we both drove my car at a later event. He's clearly much more potent behind the wheel of his car, because he has it tuned and setup to his personal preferences and style as a driver. Same goes for me with my car. Both cars are 2003 S2000s but they have different setups (alignment, FSB and tires are different... my car oversteers a bit more than his by design) You can now apply that to trying to pilot armies of different types and builds around a 40k table. You'll be much more effective playing a list you're more comfortable with and understand better.

@Timmah: Yes, the learning curve is much more severe for 40k than it is with something like MTG or L5R and I defintiely agree that playing A LOT is really the only way to get GOOD at 40k. There is however a PILE of very useful information available to anyone who wants to take games like MTG seriously, which drastically reduces the learning curve for those games. I'm the type of person who likes to try and figure things out for myself usually, so I neglect a lot of this information. I find that I eventually arrive at very similar conclusions to the very successful players writing the articles and such, but it takes me far longer. Sure, reading it is a lot different than applying it, that should be a given. Reading it makes you think about it though, which will lead to finding the application quicker and generally learning faster. Absorbing and using the information and experience of others in conjunction with playing a lot will make you a better player much faster than just playing a lot will. I also don't think its possible to become a good player by reading everything and not playing much. Application is the most important part of the process.

Caffran, I couldn't have put it better myself.

The basics in 40k come down to this.
Have troops.
Have some anti tank
Have some close combat
Have some anti horde

There are your fundamentals. Does everybody in this thread have that in their army? At least 2 10 man tac squads, 1 melta gun, 1 power fist, and 1 flamer in their 2000 point list? feth you thats all my army needs are those two squads and a captain with a power fist. Ill burn your entire 180 man ork boy army down with that one flamer, ill kill all your nob bikers with that power fist. Ill take out your three land raiders with that single melta gun. Because im that much better then you.

Finally I present this argument. The people who actually get out and play events. Me, Gornall, Blackmoor, Darkwynn, Diggler, some of us ( the latter three) even win them. We are all telling you that player comfort and skill>list build. If some pro NFL football player gave you tips on improving your game, you wouldnt shun him because 'some guy on the internet said this hypothetical play is better"

Darth:

I think the 'best' lists might be more archetypes than actual lists. They're going to be somewhat different at different points-levels.

Twin-Lash is generally 2 lash princes, X units of plague marines with meltas and PF Champ in rhinos, X units of Obliterators.

While it's easy to say that Lash is nerfed by mech (and/or psychic defenses), the oblits and plaguemarines do a decent job at opening the mech stuff, leaving the princes to handle cleanup.

Also (and you should know this, cause you ran Lash last year), the Lash is the icing on the cake. A daemon prince is already a pretty good buy for the points. Giving it lash makes it considerably more powerful against opponents without a defense for it, but that's not everyone. In a three-game tournament, one auto-win is a big deal.


I don't know, with any certainty, what the other 'top' builds are based around, and like you, am hoping someone can post them.

Caffran9 wrote:I think taken more generally, Timmah's point is interesting to say the least. I've been playing various CCGs competitively for years now and the information and incite on deckbuilding and playing those games is much more readily available to anyone who wants it. The top players enjoy sharing these things and increasing the level of competition around them. I've always found the 40k community to be much more closed off and in many ways "elitist" (I use this term somewhat loosely but it definitely seems like information travels through certain circles without making it to the masses, sortof like telling a secret) in terms of sharing experience and knowledgable information. I can think of exceptions to this of course, but not very many. I guess it often looks like the better 40k players really enjoy placing themselves above the rest so they aren't as forward with allowing people to learn from them.

Which was pretty much my experience on Teh Interwebz MtG-scene and one reason why I quit. There were like three deck archetypes at the time (Necro, Willowgeddon, Red/green), if you didn't play one of them or even dared to propose that maybe Type II wasn't end-to-all of MtG, you became an outcast.

Timmah's point would be valid if he himself wasn't guilty of exactly same behaviour. When someone posts a list which has done well in a tournament, his kneejerk response is "This list is different than my perception what is a good list for army X, hence it must suck and your win was a fluke". Is it a surprise this is not a good way to get reasonable discussion going?

Do these people really think so little of their hobby? Is 40k such a lousy game that there is only one 'right' way to play it?

YMMV
Eldar-seer council, either bike or wave serpent with eldrad/yriel. Firedragons in serpents. Storm guardian squads in wave serpents, fire prisms.

Orks-nob bikers, battlewagon nobs, sea of boyz.

guard-leafblower copypaste army lists

space wolves-Wolf of the wolf wolf, grey hunters, vindicators/long fangs. This is iffy since they are new.

Marines-lots of melta/flamer. Probably vulkan. Many ways to do marines.

""Do these people really think so little of their hobby? Is 40k such a lousy game that there is only one 'right' way to play it? ""

Yes, 30 TH/SS terminators, Vulkan, One 5 man tac squad and as many melta sister squads in rhinos as i can fit for troops.

@ darkwynn.

Ive got a 95 taurus wagon with 135,000 miles on it. Ill trade you for the audi. Ill even drive to pick it up and drop my car off.

I think fundamentally the issue is 40k (and especially 5th edition 40k) allows for a much broader range of good lists than a lot of the over-analytical sort give the game credit for. Furthermore, the real power difference between the best of the best lists and the merely very good lists is small enough that it is easily lost in the continuum of skill and practice amongst players.

But, really, we have one empirical measure of list quality -- tournament wins -- which doesn't support the ascendancy of the supposed "best of" lists. The standard argument about lack of quality of competition boils down to fallaciously begging the question.


Caffran -- For my money the Infiniti G37 is better than either

Redbeard wrote:Darth:

I think the 'best' lists might be more archetypes than actual lists. They're going to be somewhat different at different points-levels.

Twin-Lash is generally 2 lash princes, X units of plague marines with meltas and PF Champ in rhinos, X units of Obliterators.

While it's easy to say that Lash is nerfed by mech (and/or psychic defenses), the oblits and plaguemarines do a decent job at opening the mech stuff, leaving the princes to handle cleanup.

Also (and you should know this, cause you ran Lash last year), the Lash is the icing on the cake. A daemon prince is already a pretty good buy for the points. Giving it lash makes it considerably more powerful against opponents without a defense for it, but that's not everyone. In a three-game tournament, one auto-win is a big deal.


I don't know, with any certainty, what the other 'top' builds are based around, and like you, am hoping someone can post them.

Here's one that Timmah posted in a thread of mine a while back:

HQ
Librarian, Null zone, The avenger

Elite
10x TH/SS terminators (or 2x LC added in for extra CC punch)
LRC transport w/MM
2x Rifleman dread

Troops
(2x) 10x tact marines, flamer ML, rhino

Fast attack
2x HF/MM landspeeder or 2x MM bikes

Heavy support
2x AC/HB predator
LRC w/MM


It's very similar to Stelek's list which uses a MotF to get as many MM Dreads and Dakka Preds in there as possible. It's a reasonable list IMO, but I wouldn't call it "the best". The idea of the "Best-Of" lists (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for each Force-Org slot, you pick the best dual-role (anti-vehicle and anti-infantry) unit and spam them. Search for "Best Of" on YTTH and you'll see a bunch of them. I'm not saying they're bad lists, but I do think that with 40k, no matter the list, YMMV.

Eidolon wrote:YMMV
Eldar-seer council, either bike or wave serpent with eldrad/yriel. Firedragons in serpents. Storm guardian squads in wave serpents, fire prisms.

Orks-nob bikers, battlewagon nobs, sea of boyz.

guard-leafblower copypaste army lists

space wolves-Wolf of the wolf wolf, grey hunters, vindicators/long fangs. This is iffy since they are new.

Marines-lots of melta/flamer. Probably vulkan. Many ways to do marines.

Problem is, these aren't lists, they're archetypes. And, if you tried to define them, someone would come along and say, "no, that's not the competitive build." Which I guess is the point a lot of people are trying to make, that there isn't one best build. It is those who believe that there is one true build (per archetype even) who should step up and post what it is.

Eidolon wrote:YMMV
Eldar-seer council, either bike or wave serpent with eldrad/yriel. Firedragons in serpents. Storm guardian squads in wave serpents, fire prisms.

Orks-nob bikers, battlewagon nobs, sea of boyz.

guard-leafblower copypaste army lists

space wolves-Wolf of the wolf wolf, grey hunters, vindicators/long fangs. This is iffy since they are new.

Marines-lots of melta/flamer. Probably vulkan. Many ways to do marines.

""Do these people really think so little of their hobby? Is 40k such a lousy game that there is only one 'right' way to play it? ""

Yes, 30 TH/SS terminators, Vulkan, One 5 man tac squad and as many melta sister squads in rhinos as i can fit for troops.

@ darkwynn.

Ive got a 95 taurus wagon with 135,000 miles on it. Ill trade you for the audi. Ill even drive to pick it up and drop my car off.

hehe no thanks. I love my Audi.

Timmah wrote:
That is why in sports like football you are taught quality fundamentals. The best athletes don't just go with what works for them, they learn the best fundamentals. And since they are such good athletes both will (in theory) work for them. However the better "on paper" fundamentals will win in the long run.

Hmm. There is a guy on ATP tour who hits two-handed forehand slice. Those not familiar with tennis, it's equivalent of using Fire Warriors as assault troops in 40k.

Would he be better if he hit conventional semi-Western topspin forehand? Nobody knows. What we DO know is that there are literally THOUSANDS of players who hit conventional forehand, are taller, stronger and more athletic, and have never made a dime on the Pro tour. Whilst this guy has made $10 million in prize money, has beat Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, nearly all the greats, multiple times. And he is hardly only example. In fact relatively few of the "greats" have textbook games. No tennis pro would teach a Bjorn Borg backhand, or Steffi Graf forehand.

Yes, lots of best athletes DO what works for them.

You guys seem to be getting hung up on the word best. There is a best way to do each army.

You are arguing styles vs fundamentals. No matter how Tim Tebow should play, probably in some type of spread offense, he still needs to learn the fundamentals behind throwing the ball. If he never learns quality footwork, he will be destined to be a second rate QB. Think Jamarcus Russell, By many he has some of the best abilities talent wise as a starting QB. However he still is learning the basics, like proper footwork. He can use his skill currently to be a decent player, but in order to go to the next level he must learn "the best" fundamentals.

In 40k there are many different lists that get the job done. For the record I have only argued the following:

A: Seasoned pros usually think their way is right and everyone else is wrong. ( I never said I was an exception to this)

B: Using the best list possible does not gimp your skill in the long run.


I AM NOT arguing that there is 1 overall best list.
I am saying their is a best way to do each type (foot, mech, gunline ect) of army for each codex when it comes to all around tournament builds. (obviously with a couple tweaks for personal preference)

Heck blackmoore even said his army was not optimized. This does not encourage competition and does not promote growth in skill. Quite the opposite in fact.

Gornall wrote:

Here's one that Timmah posted in a thread of mine a while back:

HQ
Librarian, Null zone, The avenger

Elite
10x TH/SS terminators (or 2x LC added in for extra CC punch)
LRC transport w/MM
2x Rifleman dread

Troops
(2x) 10x tact marines, flamer ML, rhino

Fast attack
2x HF/MM landspeeder or 2x MM bikes

Heavy support
2x AC/HB predator
LRC w/MM

For the record, this is much more of a rock lists and is used against armies that have trouble dealing with things like this. It can eat foot lists without enough shooting because they have no way of dealing with the rock part of it. (TH/SS termies) While being balanced enough to have a chance against armies that can deal with said unit.

Thank you for continuing to be rude in a discussion, Eidolon. Are you 12? Can you not handle someone with opposing viewpoints to your own without insulting them? Because you are very much proving my #2 argument. Go read my previous posts. No where did I deviate from my original arguments. Maybe you didn't comprehend them correctly. (since your 12)

Timmah wrote:I AM NOT arguing that there is 1 overall best list.
I am saying their is a best way to do each type (foot, mech, gunline ect) of army for each codex when it comes to all around tournament builds. (obviously with a couple tweaks for personal preference)

I'm NOT arguing that all lists are created equal. There are some lists that are just poo no matter who the player is. What I AM arguing is that lists CANNOT be evaluated solely in a vaccum. There is a syngeristic effect between a list and the natural abilities/tendancies/playstyle of the controlling player. That player may get enough synergistic effect out of that list to overcome it's on-paper "weakness". You have to evaluate the entire system (both player and list) to understand why something works. I am NOT saying that Blackmoor simply overcame the "weakness" of his list. I'm saying that because he ran a list that meshed well with his natural playstyle and experience, he actually made the list perform better. You give that list to someone equal to Blackmoor's skill and experience, but with different natural playstyles and I would argue they would do worse. Conversely, if you gave Blackmoor a list that is as strong or stronger than his list, but it doesn't suit his playstyle, then I would argue his performance would also suffer.

Very true Gornall, but by blackmoores own admission his list was not optimized. And many players think that playing the best list they can would hurt their skill in the long run because said list would be a crutch. I am saying that this is just untrue and that in pretty much every other competitive game, they feel the same way.

Darkwynn wrote:<snip>. Jwolf said we tally up around 500 + games over three months just to try and test list out. We have played with these list way before he came out with this sort of list and tagged them his own. <snip>

How in the world are you getting that many games in? 500 games/90 days = ~5.55/day. Playing a game an hour would take up all my non-sleep/non-working time as well as everything else in my life. Are you playing 5 moves and then declaring a winner like in that chess scenario upthread? Seriously, how can you possibly play that many games in so short a time and still enjoy it?