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.

Imperial Agents. And GW went a made it a codex...

An army of Pyrovores.

EDIT: No, an army of unmarked Furies. These things have no guns and are liable to instantly go poof if they lose combat. Bonus Points if you decide to Deepstrike them.

You know, I ran the math. Well-played, an army of all Furies will beat the 185 Servitor army.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, I ran the math. Well-played, an army of all Furies will beat the 185 Servitor army.

...you don't say.

Say how many furies is that? I might actually be able to field it.

48 Squads of 5, 4 of 6.

If my midnight math is right, 264? I think I may be a few dozen short.

I thought I settled this in a previous thread for an 1850 pt list of super bad (non auto lose) list

1 Ordo xeno Inquisitor
digital weapons
tome of vethric

Tidewall Defense network
29 tidewall shieldline

1850 on the dot

 sfshilo wrote:
Use csm in a csm army.

Indeed. Take Thousand Sons. Very nice new models but heavily overcosted.

just wanted to point out, that if you took any of these lists, and played it genuinely as best you could, against the other worst lists on here, it's not easy to see who'd lose.

Lobbas in a close quarters space hulk, crewed by Gretchin.

Trazer985 wrote:
just wanted to point out, that if you took any of these lists, and played it genuinely as best you could, against the other worst lists on here, it's not easy to see who'd lose.

There's a semi-comic tournament format where you build the worst army you can and swap lists with your opponent before each game. Absent lists dependent on the scenario or on making the whole army out of fortifications I suspect Wych-spam, Hormagaunt-spam, Deathwatch 16-models-for-1500pts, and the Fury list would make up the winners' bracket.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Trazer985 wrote:
just wanted to point out, that if you took any of these lists, and played it genuinely as best you could, against the other worst lists on here, it's not easy to see who'd lose.

There's a semi-comic tournament format where you build the worst army you can and swap lists with your opponent before each game. Absent lists dependent on the scenario or on making the whole army out of fortifications I suspect Wych-spam, Hormagaunt-spam, Deathwatch 16-models-for-1500pts, and the Fury list would make up the winners' bracket.

My plasma spam list would lose against horde spam. Would probably win by a long shot against the deathwatch but 10 guys with plasma guns in around 325 points. You couldwin against 17 deathwatch guys at 2000 points

You guys do realize that the points limit is a maximum, right?

Just because you agree to an 1850pt game doesn't mean if your entire army for that match consists of one 25pt Inquisitor with no upgrades, your list breaks the rules.

Only Canoptek Scarabs. No Harvest. No Spyders. Just 10 units of 9 Scarabs.

FireSkullz2 wrote:
Only Canoptek Scarabs. No Harvest. No Spyders. Just 10 units of 9 Scarabs.

12" Move? Check.

3 Wounds apiece? Check.

The ability to wound/glance literally anything in the game? Check.

This doesn't seem that bad-ESPECIALLY compared to some of the lists on here. (That being said, it's not very good either.)

Umm.

I just said that a 25 point Inquisitor consists of a complete, legal, Battleforged army for any theoretical points limit from 25 to infinity.

This is a thread asking what the worst army you can build for 40k is.

Where's my ribbon.

 Pouncey wrote:
Umm.

I just said that a 25 point Inquisitor consists of a complete, legal, Battleforged army for any theoretical points limit from 25 to infinity.

This is a thread asking what the worst army you can build for 40k is.

Where's my ribbon.

The spirit is for it to be an 1850 point list. Yes, you technically can have less than that, but that's kinda cheating.

And it doesn't have to be battleforged, so I'll one-up you:

One Mucolid Spore. 15 Points. No shooting attacks. No close combat attacks. T3, 3 wounds, Ld 3. The only way it does damage is by blowing itself up.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Umm.

I just said that a 25 point Inquisitor consists of a complete, legal, Battleforged army for any theoretical points limit from 25 to infinity.

This is a thread asking what the worst army you can build for 40k is.

Where's my ribbon.

The spirit is for it to be an 1850 point list. Yes, you technically can have less than that, but that's kinda cheating.

And it doesn't have to be battleforged, so I'll one-up you:

One Mucolid Spore. 15 Points. No shooting attacks. No close combat attacks. T3, 3 wounds, Ld 3. The only way it does damage is by blowing itself up.

If you're designing an army to be the worst, why is your argument that my entry is invalid is because it's too low-powered to count?

Also, yup, that's the lowest-powered army possible. Thread over, you get the ribbon.

Not too low-powered. Too low points.

It's easy to make crappy lists without going to high points levels. See the Mucolid Spore. Or, hell, a squad of 3 acolytes (12 points, 5+ armour save, human statlines).

The trick is building a list that actually fills the points and is still terrible.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not too low-powered. Too low points.

It's easy to make crappy lists without going to high points levels. See the Mucolid Spore. Or, hell, a squad of 3 acolytes (12 points, 5+ armour save, human statlines).

The trick is building a list that actually fills the points and is still terrible.

Points = Power

That's the principle behind the idea that points are a thing that balances the game by making two radically different armies equivalent in power.

In a perfect game, yes. In the mess that is 40k... Which would you rather have? 2,000 points of Warp Spiders, or 2,000 points of Veterans with stock gear?

 JNAProductions wrote:
In a perfect game, yes. In the mess that is 40k... Which would you rather have? 2,000 points of Warp Spiders, or 2,000 points of Veterans with stock gear?

So why are we caring about points values at all as a playerbase if we are willing to say that "Points = Power" is not applicable to 40k?

Why are you insisting that your army and your opponents' armies must be similar in points values to have a fair game?

You basically just said the idea of points shouldn't be a thing in 40k at all since they are so fundamentally useless for balance they fail to meet the basic principle of why they are a thing at all.

Points are a good thing.

They just aren't working right for 40k at the moment. They're good approximations-especially with more diverse armies. 2,000 points of guard might not usually be as good as 2,000 points of Eldar, but it'll be a good game-it might be lopsided in the Eldar's favor, but unless the IG is bad and the Eldar player is great, it won't be a total curbstomp.

Obviously spamming just one unit is going to cause issues.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Points are a good thing.

They just aren't working right for 40k at the moment. They're good approximations-especially with more diverse armies. 2,000 points of guard might not usually be as good as 2,000 points of Eldar, but it'll be a good game-it might be lopsided in the Eldar's favor, but unless the IG is bad and the Eldar player is great, it won't be a total curbstomp.

Obviously spamming just one unit is going to cause issues.

The idea that your two armies having similar points values means it's going to be a good game is entirely because those similar values tell you those two armies are similar in terms of power.

You can't tell me you believe in points values as a balancing factor when you're willing to tell me you believe that "low points" and "low power" are such fundamentally different things it's worth arguing the difference!

Okay, I do agree lower points is lower power. But I also think the spirit of this challenge was to build an 1850 (or close to it) point list as weak as you can. Not to cheese the system by building a 25 or less point list.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, I do agree lower points is lower power. But I also think the spirit of this challenge was to build an 1850 (or close to it) point list as weak as you can. Not to cheese the system by building a 25 or less point list.

I didn't cheese the system.

I was fully within the rules.

You are not, nor have ever been, required to maximize the number of points you're allowed. You have always been allowed to be lower than the maximum points value, and there has never been a minimum points value on your army.

The fact you want to max out the points value is because it is something we always do. And the only reason we always do it is because it means our list is as powerful as it can be.

So you're saying that you're technically following the rules-and you don't see why I think that's against the spirit of the challenge?

I totally agree-by the strict laws of the challenge laid before us, you are fine. But by the INTENTIONS I don't think you are.

I'm going to preempt the rest of this argument by grabbing the 'worst abuse of the rules' trophy with a zero-point list of zero detachments and zero models. Pouncey's single Inquisitor beats it every time.

Since the definition of 'army' is under dispute I'm going to suggest legal, battle-forged, and within 10pts of a target points total for future discussion for the sake of keeping it interesting.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're saying that you're technically following the rules-and you don't see why I think that's against the spirit of the challenge?

I totally agree-by the strict laws of the challenge laid before us, you are fine. But by the INTENTIONS I don't think you are.

No, I'm saying that you're telling me, "Sorry, your army's not powerful enough to be a competitor in this thread where we make the least powerful armies we can."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm going to preempt the rest of this argument by grabbing the 'worst abuse of the rules' trophy with a zero-point list of zero detachments and zero models. Pouncey's single Inquisitor beats it every time.

Since the definition of 'army' is under dispute I'm going to suggest legal, battle-forged, and within 10pts of a target points total for future discussion for the sake of keeping it interesting.

Beat you to it on page 1.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/707978.page#9013971

I'm looking at this wrong. I clearly did win this contest. I won it so badly, that the competiition could not continue if I were a contestant, so I was prevented from entering. Which means I won against every opponent that is theoretically possible.

Has Pouncey being an a** about the unparameterized contest soured the rest of us on the parameterized contest?