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.

Just Dave wrote:He said answers, I said answers/results.

Basically, due to eliminating the mathematical element and it being probability, I still wrote answers (/results) to show the equivalent whilst maintaining there was no right/wrong answer, only probability. which can make no guarantees unless its 100%/1.0/1 over 1.

Er, you can't eliminate the mathematical element because probability is using math. Say there's an SM scout squad with an ML and a tac squad with an ML. Both shoot at the enemy rhino. The tac squad missed, and the scout squad hit. Does that mean that the scout squad is more likely to hit the rhino, therefore you should pick it over the tac squad? Of course not. There's nothing subjective about it, and it won't change the fact that the tac squad has a higher percentage rate of hitting the target than the scout squad.

Probability uses math. If the game is based on probability, then the game is based on math. "Removing" the math element is like removing caffeine from coffee--sure you can drink it, but it removes the purpose of drinking coffee in the first place, thus not making any rational sense.

Yes, I hate decaf.

starsdawn wrote:

Just Dave wrote:He said answers, I said answers/results.

Basically, due to eliminating the mathematical element and it being probability, I still wrote answers (/results) to show the equivalent whilst maintaining there was no right/wrong answer, only probability. which can make no guarantees unless its 100%/1.0/1 over 1.

Er, you can't eliminate the mathematical element because probability is using math. Say there's an SM scout squad with an ML and a tac squad with an ML. Both shoot at the enemy rhino. The tac squad missed, and the scout squad hit. Does that mean that the scout squad is more likely to hit the rhino, therefore you should pick it over the tac squad? Of course not. There's nothing subjective about it, and it won't change the fact that the tac squad has a higher percentage rate of hitting the target than the scout squad.

Probability uses math. If the game is based on probability, then the game is based on math. "Removing" the math element is like removing caffeine from coffee--sure you can drink it, but it removes the purpose of drinking coffee in the first place, thus not making any rational sense.

Yes, I hate decaf.

I never really removed the math. I accepted in my post (stated below) that probability is a form of math. Although I admit, I over-generalised in the last post, the point remains that it is not so much a game of math, but more specifically a game of probability. and due to being probability, there is more than one "correct set of answers [or results] to a problem".
Hence, my original point remains, which you appear to have conveniently ignored...

Note: Some people do drink coffee for its taste rather than drug content.

Just Dave wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
As for the VERY narrow point of view comment... what can I say... This game is based on math not opinions. In math there is one and only one correct set of answers to a problem. being broad or narrow doesn't have anything to do with anything.
AF

Correction. The game is based on probability. Whilst probability is a form of maths, it allows for multiple answers/results.
Being Broad or narrow has a lot to do with things when it comes to deciding from a wide choice of options.

Seaward wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
I can't believe I'm saying, but I've gotta agree with Seaward.

Wait, why is that a bad thing? 'Cause I was having fun in the thread about whether or not Space Wolves are intelligent?

Sarcasm mate. Although your unrelenting Space Wolf hate doesn't sit well with me to be honest. Even so, there was a thread about whether they're intelligent?


None-the-less, I'm stating this (below) again as I hate to drag the thread off topic and ultimately it is my advice to the OP rather than response to others comments.


As Destrado said, don't worry about which one is most competitive, go for the one you like the most. When it comes to competitiveness, an army is what you make it. Whilst some armies have a head-start due to rules, ultimately it's the general that matters.
You're going to be spending a lot of money and time and effort on this army so you should go for the one you like the most, each of them can be competitive and winnable, only one of them can be your favourite.
They are all MeQ, they are all 5th edition, so they can all manage in a competitive environment and are all along fairly similar lines. Ultimately I strongly believe you should go for the one you prefer.


Judging from your responses etc. I get the impression BA's is the army for you. They have the appearance, the in-your-face assault-style and plenty OTT enough for you to enjoy them (judging by your attraction to TWC) and on top of all this, there is a wide variety of builds you can go with and are a very, very competitive rulebook.

Destrado wrote:Shouldn't you go with the army you like the most?

Niiai wrote:Dude just make up your mind already. Or do as space goats do. :=)

JSK-Fox wrote:How about you don't become a WAAC gamer and play Codex Marines. That way, you will learn how to win without cheese. Either that or play Space Wolves, because Space Wolves are the least 'pretty' of the three.

True, I've come to fall in love with all three.... maybe I'll do all three! Haha. Probably not...

But this is eye opening about the game.

Also, extremely confusing.

I'm going to play a few more games with my skeleton crew of Marines...

...riding wolves or crazy assaults...

Both so tempting...

Just Dave wrote:
Sarcasm mate. Although your unrelenting Space Wolf hate doesn't sit well with me to be honest. Even so, there was a thread about whether they're intelligent?

Ha! It's strictly envy, believe me. If I could just find a way to like their fluff, I'd drop BA for SW in a heartbeat. Which I suppose is my answer to the OP's question.

And yes, there was an awfully epic thread about Space Wolf intelligence over in the Background forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

legomojo wrote:
True, I've come to fall in love with all three.... maybe I'll do all three! Haha. Probably not...

But this is eye opening about the game.

Also, extremely confusing.

I'm going to play a few more games with my skeleton crew of Marines...

...riding wolves or crazy assaults...

Both so tempting...

I feel your pain, believe me. It took me a very long time to settle on Blood Angels, and I still second-guess myself...oh, pretty much whenever I'm thinking about 40K. Like I just said, if I could bring myself to like SW fluff, I'd play Space Wolves, no question.

Seaward wrote:I feel your pain, believe me. It took me a very long time to settle on Blood Angels, and I still second-guess myself...oh, pretty much whenever I'm thinking about 40K. Like I just said, if I could bring myself to like SW fluff, I'd play Space Wolves, no question.

Though, I had a long trip from DC back to NYC (The Rally for Sanity), and I was seriously debating running both while using the same models that over lap in the two armies. Like... A Thunder Wolf Pack when I'm playing SW, and a ton of assault Troops for BA.... just as a random example...

I just figure it kinda works in to their fluff which I think I will write right now...

... does this upset anyone conceptually? I'm not a WAAC gamer... but I have just fallen so hard for both...

Just Dave wrote:
I never really removed the math. I accepted in my post (stated below) that probability is a form of math. Although I admit, I over-generalised in the last post, the point remains that it is not so much a game of math, but more specifically a game of probability. and due to being probability, there is more than one "correct set of answers [or results] to a problem".

Hence, my original point remains, which you appear to have conveniently ignored...

Your original point is, no offense, pointless. There is no "more than one" correct answer in math. None. And you did admit that probability is math. Math is objective. Therefore, probability is objective. I don't see why and how does that mean you can have multiple optimal choices. You can have multiple suboptimal choices, though.

You can't say "yeah, probability is a form of math" and say in another post "yeah, let's totally remove the math out of probability". Well, you can say it, but it makes you wrong. You also can't say "yeah, math is objective but probability isn't even if probability is a form of math." You see what I'm saying here? It's logically inconsistent.

Note: Some people do drink coffee for its taste rather than drug content.

Which ignores its original purpose, thus my coffee analogy is an apt description. Let's say you pick the scouts for their ML because they're "flavorful" or "fluffier" or whatever. You took a suboptimal choice for a ML platform because of taste, much like drinking coffee ignoring its original purpose (original purpose of the scouts here being to hit things with the ML). That is a simplified analogy but you get the idea.

I play my Space Wolves as Death Guard so it wouldn't bother me...I do it to kill boredom and because sometimes playing the good guys just gets old after a while...

I wouldn't mind.

Seaward wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
Sarcasm mate. Although your unrelenting Space Wolf hate doesn't sit well with me to be honest. Even so, there was a thread about whether they're intelligent?

Ha! It's strictly envy, believe me. If I could just find a way to like their fluff, I'd drop BA for SW in a heartbeat. Which I suppose is my answer to the OP's question.

And yes, there was an awfully epic thread about Space Wolf intelligence over in the Background forum.

Fair enough man, I won't complain. Ironically, for me it's the fluff that makes me love Space Wolves. Their rebellious, unconventional nature through which they still ultimately do the right thing and protect the people and innocent civilians. Each to their own of course and I can understand they are not for everyone, but for me they are heroes within an otherwise crappy imperium...

What I don't like is the TWC and the reputation Space Wolves have as being so easy to use/ a beat-stick. Hence I'm leaning away from using Space Wolf armies and either using a different army altogether or a very unconventional Space Wolf army...

I may have to look that thread up if I feel my sanity can take it...

starsdawn wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
I never really removed the math. I accepted in my post (stated below) that probability is a form of math. Although I admit, I over-generalised in the last post, the point remains that it is not so much a game of math, but more specifically a game of probability. and due to being probability, there is more than one "correct set of answers [or results] to a problem".

Hence, my original point remains, which you appear to have conveniently ignored...

Your original point is, no offense, pointless. There is no "more than one" correct answer in math. None. And you did admit that probability is math. Math is objective. Therefore, probability is objective. I don't see why and how does that mean you can have multiple optimal choices. You can have multiple suboptimal choices, though.

You can't say "yeah, probability is a form of math" and say in another post "yeah, let's totally remove the math out of probability". Well, you can say it, but it makes you wrong. You also can't say "yeah, math is objective but probability isn't even if probability is a form of math." You see what I'm saying here? It's logically inconsistent.

Note: Some people do drink coffee for its taste rather than drug content.

Which ignores its original purpose, thus my coffee analogy is an apt description. Let's say you pick the scouts for their ML because they're "flavorful" or "fluffier" or whatever. You took a suboptimal choice for a ML platform because of taste, much like drinking coffee ignoring its original purpose (original purpose of the scouts here being to hit things with the ML). That is a simplified analogy but you get the idea.

I can see what you are saying. However, It wasn't so much logically inconsistent but verbally or literally inconsistent. I typed it in an unsuitable way but my logic remained the same throughout. Abbadon Fidellis said that as maths, there is only one correct answer (or therefore result).
I said that the game isn't so much maths, but more specifically probability, which allows for multiple possible results. Compared to AF's idea of there only being one answer or result.

What AF is basically suggesting - and you seemingly agreeing with him - is that a game is basically decided before it's started because there's "only one correct answer".

My original point remains the same, although probability is a form of math, it allows for more than one answer/result, unlike what Fidellis said.

For example, what you both seem to be saying is that there is only one correct answer and therefore choice, that a Tactical Squad is out-right the only choice for a ML platform, compared to scouts. Whilst in most cases they are the superior ML platform, this isn't an automatically correct answer like you both suggest.
For whilst Tactical Marine have a better chance of hitting, they do cost significantly more than the scouts (170pts).
However, Scouts not only cost less (significantly), but are able to infiltrate/scout into a superior position so are able to threaten side/rear armour. Also, they can use Sgt. Telion to compensate for the low BS but potentially still cost less than the more expensive and [now] less likely to hit tactical marines.
So in this circumstance, your 170pts missile launcher platform has gone from being the superior choice and - as has been suggested by AF and yourself - therefore the only choice, to...
... being inferior when compared to the cheaper, superior positioned and more likely to hit Scout Squad with Sergeant Telion.

Hence, there is more than one potential answer/result and there isn't a definitely correct one in many cases.
Similarly, what would you say is a better anti-tank unit? A Predator Annihilator or 5 Combi-melta Sternguard in a drop pod?

The predator is cheaper and possesses higher-ranged and higher-strength anti-tank weaponry. However, it can be taken out in a single shot and will struggle against targets such as Land Raider.
Conversly, Combi-melta Sternguard are very unlikely to be taken out in one shot and with their melta-weaponry can reliably destroy almost any tank in the game. However they are short-ranged and more expensive.

In such a situation, there isn't a definably correct answer. Particularly if you factor in extraneous variables such as the composition of the rest of your army or the enemy force. Hence my original point remains. It isn't a game of maths where there is only one correct answer. It is a game of probability (yes I know probability is a form of maths), which you can be affected by many factors and leaves the door open for many possible consequences.


Note to OP, it is much easier to 'change' from using an army as Codex Marines to Blood Angels than it is to either of these to Space Wolves. Although they are all Space Marines, Space Wolves use much less Jump Packs, have your much-liked TWC and have a very distinctive image to them. Obviously 'count-as' will work, however for practicality sakes, it's easier to use Codex and Blood Angels than either of these and Space Wolves. YMMV of course...

You are talking about variations and context. Not probability.

If there was a special rule in every army which kills all Space marines, it doesn't change the fact that Space marines shoot better than scouts, even if it means getting scouts would be better in this context =P

There are enough professional accounting, engineering and science people in this hobby that if you go with the math doesn't mean anything argument your going to look foolish.

As far as what to go with I don't really think space marines are meant for CC as there only means of winning. Blood angels are sick right now with the amount of CC buffs they get but I think when all the armies get updated blood angles will be scene as overpriced vanilla marines as fast vehicles have the alot of the same problems (weak side armor, long range guns that don't get better close up) regular vanilla vehicles have BUT FASTER! They are by no means weak though just very focused on CC and I think space marines should be a little bit of everything.

I think space wolves embody this spirit the best with there options to get armor, solid troops, anti-everything, long rang/close range fire and some nasty CC all into several lists that work. For newer players I think they are the most friendly and have plenty of options for more advanced players. I personally hate their fluff.

This brings me to codex space marines. If you prefer a no frills approach to gaming or like to field a crap load of tanks codex SM is the way to go. SM lists require more thought than SW lists do since we have more dud codex entries but it is very manageable to make a solid all comers list with them that is completely strait forward/no surprises to anyone just rock hard. When people play me that don't complain about my special rules or my overpowered anything they just say holy crap that's a lot of tanks/bikes depending on what list im playing and try not to get blown off the table.

While I usually don't like giving the play whatever you like advice since some codex's are severely in need of an update you can really pick any of these three and do just fine and remember that power armor is power armor if you have a specific theme in mind just pick the rules you like best and convert/paint your army to be whatever chapter you like including chaos SM.

The post above makes my head hurt. And english isn't my primary language >.<

cromwest wrote:There are enough professional accounting, engineering and science people in this hobby that if you go with the math doesn't mean anything argument your going to look foolish.

As far as what to go with I don't really think space marines are meant for CC as there only means of winning. Blood angels are sick right now with the amount of CC buffs they get but I think when all the armies get updated blood angles will be scene as overpriced vanilla marines as fast vehicles have the alot of the same problems (weak side armor, long range guns that don't get better close up) regular vanilla vehicles have BUT FASTER! They are by no means weak though just very focused on CC and I think space marines should be a little bit of everything.

I think space wolves embody this spirit the best with there options to get armor, solid troops, anti-everything, long rang/close range fire and some nasty CC all into several lists that work. For newer players I think they are the most friendly and have plenty of options for more advanced players. I personally hate their fluff.

This brings me to codex space marines. If you prefer a no frills approach to gaming or like to field a crap load of tanks codex SM is the way to go. SM lists require more thought than SW lists do since we have more dud codex entries but it is very manageable to make a solid all comers list with them that is completely strait forward/no surprises to anyone just rock hard. When people play me that don't complain about my special rules or my overpowered anything they just say holy crap that's a lot of tanks/bikes depending on what list im playing and try not to get blown off the table.

While I usually don't like giving the play whatever you like advice since some codex's are severely in need of an update you can really pick any of these three and do just fine and remember that power armor is power armor if you have a specific theme in mind just pick the rules you like best and convert/paint your army to be whatever chapter you like including chaos SM.

Well, thank you. That is a good way to look at it... the poll results almost read that way too... haha.

Yuber wrote:You are talking about variations and context. Not probability.

If there was a special rule in every army which kills all Space marines, it doesn't change the fact that Space marines shoot better than scouts, even if it means getting scouts would be better in this context =P

Exactly. The quality of Scouts you, Just Dave, pointed out (points, ability to infiltrate and scout or use Telion) are not based on probability at all. I would've agreed if you have said "40k is more than just math" because it's also about generalship, controlling and tricking your opponent, making the right decisions on your army list to beat the current meta, knowing how to use your army inside and out, player experience, and in some tournament player politeness and painting skill, etc.

Probability is objective. In your Combi-Stern and Pred example, it would depend on the purpose you want them to fulfill. Wold you like it to pop medium tanks, or do you want to gank that monolith? Then it becomes more complicated so would you like it to pop medium tanks, do it in a distance, have a high survivability rate and do you have points to spare? Even if the question is complicated, you should choose the answer that will fulfill the role you had in mind (this is the reason why I specified that the objective of the Scouts here is to be an ML platform, to simplify the argument and to show what purpose they should be fulfilling). In the end, there will only be one optimal answer context-wise (context here being the composition of the rest of your army, the current meta and how much points do you have left). The answer will depend on the context, not on probability. There is only one correct answer based on the context.

I am not agreeing with AF. I am disagreeing with you saying that probability gives you a variety of choices. It doesn't.

The state of math in america is sad...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Anyways, as anybody who has done engineering or taken higher level math, there is NOT only one right answer in math.

Starting from calculus onwards, math answers aren't so much a specific answer, but a set of solutions. Linear algebra goes into the idea of finding a "best fit" answer, because in real life things don't nicely fall into a predictable equation.

The thing about using dice in 40k is that unfortunately, the 6 sided die gives very predictable results. A lot of 40k strategy revolves around manipulating probability.

You typicallly see the same people winning over and over...that is not a result of someone getting "lucky".

That is an unfortunate reality of 40k...

Then again, in the irony of optimal, what was the point of me taking all this engineering math when I never use it in real life?

scuddman wrote:The state of math in america is sad...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Anyways, as anybody who has done engineering or taken higher level math, there is NOT only one right answer in math.

Starting from calculus onwards, math answers aren't so much a specific answer, but a set of solutions. Linear algebra goes into the idea of finding a "best fit" answer, because in real life things don't nicely fall into a predictable equation.

The thing about using dice in 40k is that unfortunately, the 6 sided die gives very predictable results. A lot of 40k strategy revolves around manipulating probability.

You typicallly see the same people winning over and over...that is not a result of someone getting "lucky".

That is an unfortunate reality of 40k...

Then again, in the irony of optimal, what was the point of me taking all this engineering math when I never use it in real life?

Unfortunate reality of 40k? What? You want people winning due to luck? That's just sad.

scuddman wrote:The state of math in america is sad...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Anyways, as anybody who has done engineering or taken higher level math, there is NOT only one right answer in math.

Starting from calculus onwards, math answers aren't so much a specific answer, but a set of solutions. Linear algebra goes into the idea of finding a "best fit" answer, because in real life things don't nicely fall into a predictable equation.

The thing about using dice in 40k is that unfortunately, the 6 sided die gives very predictable results. A lot of 40k strategy revolves around manipulating probability.

You typicallly see the same people winning over and over...that is not a result of someone getting "lucky".

That is an unfortunate reality of 40k...

Then again, in the irony of optimal, what was the point of me taking all this engineering math when I never use it in real life?

I specified one and only one set of solutions in my original post... as opposed to one and only one solution.
40k decisions are optimization problems. you dont pay 20 points for a gun that does the same job as a 10 point gun.
my point to whoever it was earlier on was just that its not about opinion. all the variables are knowable. the game is based on math. for every codex and every situation there is one and only one correct choice for the codex. the sum total of all the situations you are likely to encounter gives the parimeters of the optimization problem. I cant stand it when people say its all about what works for you. thats why I bring it up. its not about what works for you. its about the numbers. AF

It's not that I want people winning due to luck...my issue with it is that 40k uses 6 sided dice, which is relatively easy to hammer out. It is, in my opinion, sometimes too easy to figure out that one particular thing is better than all others...
That's the unfortunate reality..game is becoming more simplistic <- leads to quicker breakdown.

Because of the way 40k works (no turning restrictions, side attacks mean nothing, no facing etc.), the game breaks down quickly when people take WAAC army lists.

You play pure deathwing and you face mech guard...I don't care how good of a player the deathwing player is, if the IG player follows the checklist, he'll win.

And not just win..he'll win every time. Skill has nothing to do with it.

more or less yeah. the game is very heavily tilted in favor of the guard player. imo its a balance problem thats on gw's game development staff to fix. It has alot to do with the codex system too. I dont have to gimp my game because they cant be bothered to do thorough r&d though. that being said I think its good to bring underpowered lists against underpowered opponents.

*nods*

This isn't helping at all now... its even MORE confusing.

Er, what's wrong with a simple game? The game does not degenerate or break down because it is simple--it breaks down if it is poorly designed. Take the uber-classic example of chess: it's so simple you can teach it to a kid, yet it takes a lot of skill to master it. Last time I looked, chess never broke down. In fact, games with simple rules are easier to balance.

It also takes skill (or common sense, really) to choose your army list. In this case, it's lack of skill on the Deathwing player's part to, you know, choose a list that can win. You shouldn't bring a sword in a gunfight. I mean, you can, but more or less you'll die before you can kill anyone (there's an off-chance that you'll kill someone in close combat, but would you risk your life in that wee bit of chance?). In the same vein, you can take an underpowered list if you just want to have fun, but don't expect to win against optimized lists.

You limit "skill" with the decisions the player will have to make during battle, but the decisions made pre-battle are also important. In fact, it might be more important. It's not a coincidence Sun Tzu mentioned you should win a battle before fighting.


"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

...Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." -Sun Tzu

Would you call someone who brought an inferior weapon in a fight "skillful"?

Now, it's GW's responsibility if they want to make all kinds of lists balanced, but it's the player's responsibility (given he/she wants to win in a competitive environment) to bring a list that can win. A dead Chinese strategist demands it.

just pick the 1 you like best for fluff. all 3 are good. if you go with codex be sure to play a vulkan list. the others just arent that strong.

Well, in a normal video game like street fighter, I would agree with you. Your character can't hang? Next time you put a quarter in, you pick a different one.

However, a 40k army is a big time and money investment. You can't just suddenly pick another one after you've invested in an army.

Edit: Well, to be on topic, let me just say what I always say to people who ask me this question. Pick the army that suits your style and that you really like. That will mean more than anything else. Styles make players, and styles make matchups, much like in boxing or any combat sport. Know your army, know your style, and know your matchups (which means consequently you'll also know your tier rankings). Pick the army that suits your style.

scuddman wrote:Well, in a normal video game like street fighter, I would agree with you. Your character can't hang? Next time you put a quarter in, you pick a different one.

However, a 40k army is a big time and money investment. You can't just suddenly pick another one after you've invested in an army.

just use counts as. as long as the wargear is right people shouldnt complain.

scuddman wrote:Well, in a normal video game like street fighter, I would agree with you. Your character can't hang? Next time you put a quarter in, you pick a different one.

However, a 40k army is a big time and money investment. You can't just suddenly pick another one after you've invested in an army.

That is why you should do extensive research and planning before buying your minis if you want to win. As I have said, planning before the battle is much more important.

And I think that's lame..because if we all pick top tier, 40k will become like the video game MvC 2 where only 4 characters out of 50+ are picked.

On top of that, editions and armybooks change..and what was viable before might not be viable now. And I'm talking about viable...I'm not necessarily talking about competitive worthy.

But yes, you are right. There are certain...tendecies/phenomenon that reoccur that allow you to carefully pick a more powerful army.

ok.
I have a berserker army I'm playing as blood angels. blood angels are better than berserkers right now and I dont like getting my face smashed by space wolves etc, which I will if I play a codex with such a piss poor set of tools as chaos marines. on the other hand if Im playing someone who might not be as strong I just run berserkers + demons of khorne. I think its fair because its not abusive. I have a characterful army and it's well painted and I dont think my dedication to khorne should condemn me to constantly losing to guys who just happen to play better armies. Its on gw to fix this problem. I agree its not really the way the game is supposed to be played. but they force me to do it you know?

scuddman wrote:And I think that's lame..because if we all pick top tier, 40k will become like the video game MvC 2 where only 4 characters out of 50+ are picked.

On top of that, editions and armybooks change..and what was viable before might not be viable now. And I'm talking about viable...I'm not necessarily talking about competitive worthy.

But yes, you are right. There are certain...tendecies/phenomenon that reoccur that allow you to carefully pick a more powerful army.

It's still the same: top tier lists will dominate the top lists. Same way that in Magic: the Gathering, top deck lists will have a higher chance of making it to the top 8. In any competitive game, the same thing will happen: tactics that can be done before of after the battle that would increase your chances of winning would be reused and reused. And even if everybody knows what the top tier is, there will still be people who won't pick it for various reasons. There's nothing wrong with picking what you want if it's not your main objective to play to win, but if you are playing to win thinking that "it's lame that not everything is top tier so I'll just pick what I want" won't really help your position.

There is still out-of-the-box thinking, and sometimes it helps: sometimes people are unprepared for the unusual tactics you're using and it will throw them off-guard, but it will require a lot of playtesting and planning more than using your usual top tier tactics. For thinking out of the box works, you should know why is there a box in the first place.

Back to the OP:

All 3 armies have their different play styles and strong builds. I started with vanilla/codex SM then moved to a more assaualt oriented fast BA army. BA are good if you like having (for the most part) a small number, hard hitting, mobile, and resilient force. You have to be the aggressor with BA as it works well with their units (fast tanks, JP, FC and FNP) , as with generic marines, you can have different builds and different play styles by just selecting different special characters (i love pedro cantor mostly for the fluff + i love stern guard) but generic marines are more balanced to any stlye of play, although they usually favor shooty, tactical play.

... Can't tell you anything about SW though... Jaws of the great wolf thing.. kiss ma arse. ;p

scuddman wrote:And I think that's lame..because if we all pick top tier, 40k will become like the video game MvC 2 where only 4 characters out of 50+ are picked.

On top of that, editions and armybooks change..and what was viable before might not be viable now. And I'm talking about viable...I'm not necessarily talking about competitive worthy.

But yes, you are right. There are certain...tendecies/phenomenon that reoccur that allow you to carefully pick a more powerful army.

Every 5th ed codex that has come out so far has several builds that can be fielded and they haven't released a dud codex yet this edition so enough books have been released to where there is already alot of variety between good armies. I think GW has the codex building down pretty good as of late and expect that all the new codex's this edition will be more or less on par with each other. Also I just took 3rd in an 18 man 1750 Halloween tournament yesterday GO VANILLA! GO VANILLA! GO VANILLA! But yeah SW placed higher than me.

legomojo wrote:*nods*

This isn't helping at all now... its even MORE confusing.

Yeah, people are busy fellating themselves over how great their opinions on 40K are. I think your question's lost in the shuffle.

Seriously. If fluff's not a consideration, choose your playstyle. If you want assault, go Blood Angels. If you want balance and the most flexibility, go Vanilla. If you want to win because Space Wolf players apparently had compromising pictures of the guy writing their codex, go Space Wolves.