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.

Inspired by the video in this thread and an army list thread over at the Serpent's Lair (Alpha Legion forum), I'm wondering how people pick and choose their lists, tactics and strategies. I realise this may be the wrong forum, but it's not about specific tactics or lists.

I pick the army first, then explore how I want to play them by looking at different lists and playtesting, which makes it essentially ever-evolving. In my example, I want to play a fluffy, but highly competitive list, that focuses on not necessarily utilising the strongest unit in the list, but rather enhancing them with synergy. I care little whether I win or lose, but I love watching my overarching strategy paying off on a tactical level.

To explain how I have done mine and why I do things the way I do (I'm not saying there's a right or wrong here, it's all subjective), I'd just like to start off with I have a highly inquisitive and analytical mind with regards to game design, rules, tactics, strategies, with a contrarian outlook, so if someone tells me a unit is useless I try to figure out why/if the game designers made it useless, and potentially what their role is and how to exploit their supposed useless status. This stems from board games played against players who are similar in approach - we don't care about winning or losing, just figuring out the best strategy, then how to counter it.

Now, building strategies in 40k is mainly different from most board games and video games simply because the evolution of the army is so much slower due to painting and buying costs. My only 40k army after returning is Alpha Legion, so I decided buying the DV set to learn more about the units at my disposal before gradually adding a squad of CSMs with plasma guns, a lascannoned-out Predator to take out tanks, a squad of 5 autocannon-wielding Havocs. I got the Helbrute dataslate and the Cypher dataslate, as I was keen on using my Cultists with the Helcult formation and infiltrating loads of units with a Huron and Cypher combo, plus adding a full squad of melta-gun wielding Chosen, and after facing Khorne berzerkers, another squad of power sword-wielding Chosen to help them out. Trying to emulate the Alpha Legion strategies, I thought I could maybe add some Deep Striking units to go with the Infiltrating units.

So my army evolved from a Battle Forged army of roughly a Helcult of 70 Cultists and a Helbrute, 2x5 CSMs, 8 melta-gun wielding Chosen with Cypher, 6 Chosen with the Chaos Lord at 1400 points that would infiltrate as much as possible into an Unbound army consisting roughly of the Helcult, 2x8 Fallen Angel Chosen with Cypher, Huron, Predator, Havoc squad and a Mayhem pack (3 Deep Striking Helbrutes) and the Deep Striking DV DA termies converted into Fallen Angel termies. Now I've got a massive amount of Infiltrating and Deep Striking units.

However, I'm now considering changing it again by switching to the SM codex with IG allies (because the CSM really doesn't cater to Alpha Legion) and using Raptor tactics from FW's Siege of Vraks with Lias Issodon to emulate the Alpha Legion even more closely, specifically messing with opponent Reserve Rolls, re-rolling my own Reserve Rolls, using Alpha Legion operatives (IG), my own SMs have Stealth etc.

When I build a list, is purely based on what I feel like running. If I want something fast I break out the transports and Drop Pods, if I want a slow advance the infantry hordes come out. If I want to mix things up I'll build with certain themes m, like elite armies or one with lots of DS. I never really think about how 'good' the army is, as far as I'm concerned the game doesn't start until the dice are rolling. From there, I play to win, before that cool is all that matters.

I'm similar to Paradigm in that I'll pick whichever army and sub type of army I feel like playing. However within that I will make sure I hit a few core requirements, namely lots of anti heavy armour, lots of AP2/3 and a fair amount of troop choices. If I stick to those core requirements my lists do well within my local meta as I know I can deal with anything I will come across. If I played against, rather than with, more hordes I would want more flamers/large blasts, but I don't so I don't.

I pretty much just have the one list for my Guard
x2 Plasma vets in a bolter chimmira
x4 Armoured Sentinels with autocannons and hunter killers
Pask in a Vanquisher and two Extermiators as his buddies.
Any thing eles is what ever I feel like running for a change.

So how do you guys pick your faction in combination?

When starting out, I just went with an army based solely on looks. I didn't care how Nids (and later Eldar) performed, or about their Strengths or Weakness. I bought units solely on looks.

When it comes to game time, if I'm going to the LGS for a pick-up game, I usually just bring my entire collection. If someone wants to play against something specific (eg, recently I had a guy want to play against Serpent Spam as practice for an upcoming tourney), I'll either build a list to accommodate, or I'll throw together something just to see what happens (like running a non-Synapse army against Iron Warriors).

The one thing I don't do is ask my opponent what kind of list he is bringing, and then make a list specifically for that army (unless asked to first).

As for tactics/strategies it depends on the army list I'm playing with/against.

I look at the meta to see what power builds I will be most likely to face in an upcoming league or tournament. Then I build a list to counter that. Right now, fast marines with IK ally and serpent spam are the go to builds. Therefore I take lots of pods to easily contest objectives, melta for the armor I face, and a deep strike squad with storm shields to take on their biggest threat. I added Ulrik to take on wraithknights. Preferred enemy and monster hunter work wonders on riptides and wraithknights.

I don't intentionally tailor my lists. But it happens, it's nearly impossible to avoid.
When you play you form an opinion on certain units. That opinion gets heavily influenced by the opponents you play.

If your meta/'regular opponent' always wipes out your Terminators, you will start to believe that Terminators are a crap unit.
Then you will start to avoid using those Terminators because you think they are bad.

I primarily select units which keep the internal structure of the army good (almost/fully TAC), and 25-30% of the list goes for the units which go by the Rule of Cool.

 Paradigm wrote:
When I build a list, is purely based on what I feel like running. If I want something fast I break out the transports and Drop Pods, if I want a slow advance the infantry hordes come out. If I want to mix things up I'll build with certain themes m, like elite armies or one with lots of DS. I never really think about how 'good' the army is, as far as I'm concerned the game doesn't start until the dice are rolling. From there, I play to win, before that cool is all that matters.

Pretty much this.

I either start with a theme or a specific unit or two. A theme, like an armored column, 1st & 10th, planetfall, etc, just restricts what units I take down from the shelf to make a cohesive force. Building an army around a unit often will drive a theme, but sometimes just generate a TAC list. Sometimes a unit is getting a little dusty on the shelf, so I decide it needs to hit the table. Other times, freshly painted models need their baptism of fire. For unit-driven lists I figure out what the flaws are with the things I need to include, and build the rest of the army to compensate. If I find myself leaning on a unit to much, I’ll run a list or two without it to give other things more table time (and so my army doesn’t get stagnant)

I have a checklist of things I need to be able to deal with:

Get scoring units to objectives, and keep them there for as long as needed.
Deal with heavy armor (AV 13-14)
Medium/light armor (often transports)
MCs
Flyers
Hordes

In an ideal world, I’ll have a network or redundant overlap and secondary roles, so there is no single point of failure. Points and what models I have have in my collection often make this impossible, but I try.

I don’t list tailor. I just make a strong, fluffy, TAC list. While I play to win, I also try not to be TFG. I feel bad when I am winning overwhelmingly. Most of my games are at my FLGS, and are our small 3 round tournaments. So I can’t tailor against a specific list. Most of my set games I’m still not sure about what armies I’m going to face. It’s usually 3 guys and myself, where only my Ultramarines are fixed. Then some form of chaos, an Eldar a/o Tau army, and a SOB/IG/Knights force. Who’s partnered with who is not fixed, and we all have large enough collections that I can’t be sure what’s going to hit the table.

On the tactics and strategy side, all that needs to be evaluated when you sit down to play. I have a general idea in mind when I build my list, but no plan survives contact with the enemy.