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.

A couple points first:
I have only been playing since July of last year.

I play World Eaters and Khorne Daemons. I own no other armies.

So basically, I havent lost in months. This may seem like empty bragging, but it is getting boring real fast. Most games will see Bezerkers in rhinos, bloodletters (not deepstriked), and a smattering of long range support and cultists. What is a good way to soften a heavy assault list like this, or is this type of list not even that OP to begin with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you want more info I can answer questions. I just didnt wanna type a novel on my phone.

Thoughts:

1) Change things up if you want to try and do different things. In theory most codex should now offer multiple viable strategies so do consider changing things up. You've got a proven working army so change it for some fun for you and your opponents.

2) Have a look at the games you play and the terrain. Is the terrain setup giving you an advantage over your opponent most times (this might be totally accidental and could even be as much the fault of your opponent as you). In this case you might consider adopting some new ideas in terrain- could be as simple as adding more or less terrain than normal.

3) Are you clearly more skilled than the other players. If you're more skilled (playing not just list building); then consider that even with a "worse"army you might still keep winning. In that case the best thing is to consider an escalation situation (Start small build to bigger armies) And try to help train and teach your fellow players what is going on.

4) Swap armies at the start. Let them control your force and you control theirs. Gives both of you a new challenge; can even be combined with the point above in trying to help and teach players.

5) See if there's another club in your area. Other clubs might offer new challenges and skill levels. You might be top in one and near bottom in the other.


In general you've got to consider why there's a divide in the skill and win rates and then start to consider how you can reduce that reason for the divide.

Go to a tournament. You will meet good players with good lists.

Also Chaos is really strong right now. Berzerkers are one of the best units in the entire game.

Or you can try to Forge The Narrative!!! Dun dun da!

Instead of trying to table your opponent's or win on points come up with some objectives of your own that are not tied to the strategy of winning. Like for example you could set up some vendetta's. Make your objective be something like 'kill their warlord with a powerfist equipped Zerker champ' or 'kill as many models as possible with just your warlord'.

You could even try getting your opponent's to play in this manner and maybe see if you can come up with some new scenarios that are geared more towards storytelling.

Overread has some really good points. You've got a proven strategy, and that's awesome, so either you need to find stiffer competition so you can continue to improve that strategy (assuming that challenges are fun for you), or you need to purposefully weaken your list and find out how you can do better in that way. You can also try army swaps and escalation leagues. You can also try to be a pillar of your community and, if you really think you're exceptionally skilled, start teaching some of your tricks. Berzerkers are good, yes, but they're not OP at all, so I'm sure you're doing something right and your opponents are doing something "wrong" if you are constantly victorious.

Just nowhere near enough information to address something you feel is a concern.

1) How big is your play group? Are you playing the same people, with the same armies every week?

2) What is the budget like for you and your opponents? If you're young/starting out or simply short on cash...then people don't get to change up their armies, and if you have a bad match-up (i.e. your army is well suited to destroying your friend's army) then you'll be stuck in this cycle for months at a time.

3) Have your opponents told you that they're not having fun? If they're enjoying the games, then it's all on you deciding how you want to change your list.

4) Have you tried playing Narrative scenarios in place of boring Maelstrom stuff (meaning you are not simply tabling your opponent in most cases)

5) How would you rate the difficulty of your opponents? What about their armies?

6) If you're bored...change up your army, that's why you've got an entire codex to play with. Nowhere does it state you must use the mathematically most efficient units because they're 6.2% more likely to kill, blah blah blah.

That's dramatically different than my circumstances. I've played about 16 games and only won 1...and I play WE too.
Granted, nearly all my games have been against DG and/or tournament play.
Although I've only recently added some daemons and haven't played them yet.

Options:

A) Begin attending tournaments so you can face stiffer competition. You'll quickly find the set up you're using can be exploited in a variety of ways.

B) Teach your opponents (my favorite option). Instead of just playing the game spend the time to talk through what you're doing, why you're doing it and begin to coach your opponents so you'll get a better game (and you're game evolves).

C) Soften your lists - this may be the best option if you can't make tournaments or your play group isn't really interested in getting better .

I don't understand why everyone is patronizing this guy. It's no secret why you're winning games, and if you *genuinely* can't diagnose why you're winning, you shouldn't be winning so handsomely.

Also, you post on dakka. Which means you've got access to a lot of tournament discussions and you KNOW what units are good. Do your opponents have access to the same knowledge? Are they too standing on the shoulders of someone else, to construct a slight variant of a winning netlist?

Make fluffy lists.
Play fluffy games.

Maybe even play narrative games.

Go on. Try it.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't understand why everyone is patronizing this guy. It's no secret why you're winning games, and if you *genuinely* can't diagnose why you're winning, you shouldn't be winning so handsomely.

Also, you post on dakka. Which means you've got access to a lot of tournament discussions and you KNOW what units are good. Do your opponents have access to the same knowledge? Are they too standing on the shoulders of someone else, to construct a slight variant of a winning netlist?

I mean my first response was to be mean about the list and his opponents but this isn't 4chan so that's probably not the healthy one. I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and try to provide some legitimate feedback, assuming he was being truthful.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't understand why everyone is patronizing this guy. It's no secret why you're winning games, and if you *genuinely* can't diagnose why you're winning, you shouldn't be winning so handsomely.

Also, you post on dakka. Which means you've got access to a lot of tournament discussions and you KNOW what units are good. Do your opponents have access to the same knowledge? Are they too standing on the shoulders of someone else, to construct a slight variant of a winning netlist?

It's worth a discussion.

I've been in a similar situation with my Black Legion. I have a 2000 point list with 25 lascannons, was wiping out everything but infantry the first couple turns. While I did not win every game (and especially had problems with Orks), it was becoming rinse and repeat. Most armies were not tooled to handle losing all their big stuff right away.

I changed up my lists to try other styles of play and get out of the rut. Swapped my CSMs with Lascannons for massed Cultists. Swapped my Laspreds with Obliterators. Swapped my Helbrutes with Terminators. Swapped my Daemon Prince with a Heldrake.

Went from long-range to close combat, where I spend more time tying up opponents instead of taking out all of their heavy support. Now I'm experimenting with Daemon detachments and massed Bloodletters.

This taught me something. Dominating opponents is not as exciting as learning how to get the most out of your army. Everybody already knows how stupid my lists can be. Changing them up is necessary, not just for my own satisfaction, but to keep the gaming group sane. I don't want people feeling like they will lose unless they bring a Warhound Titan, and I always know who the competitive players are.

The other thing I did was focus more on objective based games. A long-range-shooty list is great when the goal is just to blow everything up. It's not as effective when the goal is map control, using LOS-blocking terrain, or just playing tactics.

If you feel you enjoy the core of your play style, you can handicap yourself by playing 1350 pts vs 1500, or something like that. A 10% pts handicap is a fun way to up the challenge, while allowing you to cheese to your heart's content, or play a brutal list vs a softer list.

I enjoy the challenge of going full throttle with my gaming. So for me, playing at a handicap lets me play to the best of my ability, even if my opponent isn't as skilled as I. You can figure out a good base line for your group, and then adjust to particulars.

Vs Allen, play at 10% handicap. Vs Barry, play 20% down. Vs Charles, play 15% down. Vs Random Person at the store, play 15% and see where that goes, and adjust for the next game.


You keep learning to do more with less. It can help you lean out a list for "competitive" play. You might find that 7 Zerkers works as well as 8, saving you 100 points over a few units, so you can now buy an extra Unit. It can be a rewarding choice, just for the sake of it.

But I'd also try to improve your opponent's game, if they won't take it as you being a dick. Nothing better than teaching and being beaten by the taught... as you then need to improve to match them.

 Elbows wrote:
Just nowhere near enough information to address something you feel is a concern.

1) How big is your play group? Are you playing the same people, with the same armies every week?

2) What is the budget like for you and your opponents? If you're young/starting out or simply short on cash...then people don't get to change up their armies, and if you have a bad match-up (i.e. your army is well suited to destroying your friend's army) then you'll be stuck in this cycle for months at a time.

3) Have your opponents told you that they're not having fun? If they're enjoying the games, then it's all on you deciding how you want to change your list.

4) Have you tried playing Narrative scenarios in place of boring Maelstrom stuff (meaning you are not simply tabling your opponent in most cases)

5) How would you rate the difficulty of your opponents? What about their armies?

6) If you're bored...change up your army, that's why you've got an entire codex to play with. Nowhere does it state you must use the mathematically most efficient units because they're 6.2% more likely to kill, blah blah blah.

Okay, i'm home ,showered and can ACTUALLY answer questions!

1) 6 people, but I also play randoms at the local stores on occasion. I usually play the same people week to week, but it's a pretty wide variety of armies. Orks, Admech, IG, Marines, Wolves, etc. etc.

2. A few of my opponents have no budget, while others have a tight one. We have a player who's dumped a firm grand into the game in under a year, while another guy has gone out of his way to only purchase used.

3. Only once, and he is known for getting pretty upset at ANY games when things go bad for him. He finds my style of "red sea of melee chaff" to be pretty disheartening to try to kill.

4. I've HOSTED narrative as a DM-ish standpoint with good success (success as in the players had loads of fun), but no i've never had the chance to go narrative. Most of the people I know don't want to do narrative this early into learning the new system.

5. Honestly, most of my opponents are pretty easy. And i've tried to tell them what they did wrong post-game, but they just shrug it off as more or less playing casual. They don't screen against my red tide strategy, and they usually don't prioritize the right units. (aiming for cultists when theres a rhino of Zerkers a few inches from the blob). They've done nothing to change these issues.

6. I've tried different stuff, and it doesn't seem to make much difference. I've done Fabius Bile with Mutilators, Chaos Spawn and Cultists, i've done an army of literally just Daemon Engines with 30 cultists (in 2000 points), trust me i've played dumb lists for fluffy fun's sake. Never lost with 'em.

Some people play casual. They build and paint some models (or buy them pre painted or without paint) and throw them on a table for a few hours each week for a game. They are basically not looking to spend hours reading the book; studying the rules; practising and improving their list; learning tactics on the table etc.....

They just want to "play" the game. And that's fine. If they are a group with that mentality chances are they each have a fairly similar skill level to each other so they get a smattering of wins and losses and for them the social and other aspects of the game are important to them.

Ergo YES they want to and like to win; but NO they might not want to spend time "working" to win.



There's no problem with that approach, but chances are if you are more keen and even if you've learned how to self-learn you will pass their skill level fairly fast. And end up as you are; in a situation where you can beat them even with a poor list.

Teaching a person or group like that is hard, esp since trying to teach is tricky without seeming that you are being a knowall or a rude pretentious person.


It might well be that you need to branch out and see if you can find more competitive players in the local area. Ergo those with a less casual mindset and approach to the game.

Sounds like your regular players just aren’t that interested in playing very competitively, and that’s OK. You need to bring it down a notch for them, and find an avenue elsewhere for really competitive games.

I ALWAYS bring two lists for random pick up games, for any game I play be it 40k, X Wing, Armada, and even bolt action. I learned to do this while learning WAAAy back in the day when I first got into the hobby with WArhammer fantasy. Bring a hard list, and bring one that’s broadly similar (so you don’t have to bring too many extra models) but blunts the really sharp cutting edge of the list. Often this can be as simple as changing out a few characters or swapping a single unit out for another.

Some games require more work for this, but man it is worth it both for yourself and the other player.

It’s usually pretty easy even with someone you’ve just met to judge based on their attitude and a quick look at their models which list to throw down on the table for a better game. The handful,of times I just wasn’t sure I’d simply ask. It’s always appreciated by my opponent, and my number of “bad”games went to practically zero.

Practicing for a tournament? Sure, I’ll play. First time playing a full 2k game with your new models? Yep, I got you, just gonna grab a beer real quick.

Or play an Aeldari Ynnari army.
I’ve annihilated a WE army in five rounds.

I think it depends on your opponent - what kind of lists are they bringing? Could you also maybe help your opponents improve? Explain your choices and tactics while playing.

Change the scenery and scenario so the one thing you do well is more difficult to do, and a more flexible army can hold a candle to yours.

If it ain't fun, don't keep doing what you're doing. If it is, carry on!

Play a short narrative Campaign with some interesting asymmetrical scenarios. For example, you could play three games in a row with the same opponent, representing your WE invading a planet. First game, Planetstrike, you touch down and try to gain a foothold. Second game, City Fight, you push the enemy back through their territory. Third game, Stronghold Assault, your opponent gets access to lots of defensive emplacements and fortifications as you try to breach their main defensive facility.

When I'm in this situation I like to give myself a secret handicap - so in a 2000 point game, I would only bring 1800 points of stuff and see how that worked out. Then I would lower the amount of points I brought until I felt the games were closer. It's a fun challenge and you get to play the force you want, just don't let your opponent know :p

I play in a dangerous pool of generals up and down the I-5 corridor between Seattle and Portland and so my view could be skewed. I win way more than I lose and I have for a very long time chosen to play more interesting lists than what you see all the time.

Now more interesting does not mean weak. It just requires you to have a different mindset about list building. You have to focus more on the actual play of the game and therefore more on making the units fit your tactical plan instead of just spamming the most powerful units you have and that sort of dictating things TO you.

It's subtle but the end result is opponents always see my lists and feel like I didn't just buy my way to victory or cut and paste like the last round of the LVO essentially saw.

I also don't use any Forge World ever.

So I think that a more interesting list, that allows you to DO more things is also more challenging and sharpens your skills more than the "well...I mean...I move forward..." type lists.

Don't know how much that helps. It still allows me to win far more than I lose but I think opponents probably like that version of reality better than the one in which I play a serious hard core list...which I could do... But I just dont hate losing enough to do it. And winning is all the sweeter this way.

What armies are you coming up against in your meta?

It may not be a case of your list being OP but your opponents up-ing their game. Also, if your opponents are using Index armies against your codex army that will skew things a bit.

In my gaming group, the is a vast variety of players. Casuals that don't care one bit about army efficiency, super-optimized allaitoc ynarri eldar, new players, seasoned veterans, beer&prezels gamers and highly competitive ones.

In general, if your goal is to have a fun game with a player that is not on the same level as you (for whatever reason), either lift him or her to your level (sometimes impossible) or go down to his level (easier).
A couple of things you can try to lower the power of your army and make the game more enjoyable for both of you:
- Field some models that you like, but are considered sub-par for your army. I don't know the first thing about WE, but I guess you probably know which models those are. Don't build a complete junk list, just switch out a few things for less optimal choices. The good thing about this option is that your opponent will not feel utterly destroyed, and you are fielding units you enjoy playing.
- Use some "heros". Not necessarily named characters, but a terminator chaos lord with twin lightning claws and a chaos terminator retinue (or any other pile of elite units/characters) teleporting in and trying to carve their way into the enemy army feel really strong and powerful, but are actually inferior to just driving a rhino of zerkers into the enemy lines. Less competitive players will not be able to tell that you are making your army weaker.
- If your opponent is heavily invested in the 40k background, have some of your units act according to fluff. For example, my warboss used to bee-line to whatever was the biggest fighter on the board and see what he or she could do in combat. Rarely a good decision, but my opponent was having fun. Downside is obviously not playing your army to its best.
- Change or pick the mission to handicap your army. Many missions are better for shooting armies than for melee armies, pick one where your enemy has a slight advantage over you.
- Terrain like tall ruins and forests work against assault armies, use more of those.
- In general, don't actively pull punches during the game or throw the game on purpose. People will be able to tell when you let them win. You can tone down your list and change the mission, but they still need to win the game on their own.
- Some people are just sore losers. If you soften their list and they keep complaining about your army whenever they lose, there is nothing you can do.
- Some people, especially long-time veterans seem to be allergic to winning for some reason. The guy shooting cultists instead of zerkers sounds like that kind of player. If your opponent is still having fun while losing, just make sure your list leaves them enough room to do something cool. Beyond that, there is little you can do to make the games close.

Yeah, I own a WE army just like yours OP, it's not a very hard list to use but it also loses pretty easy depending on the setup.

How big are the tables your playing on? It should not be hard to stop your army with a lot of other things.

Example, you get first turn and run everything forward and pop smoke on the rhinos. Depending on what your opponent is playing there are tons of ways to deal with this.

Space marines have devastators, hellblasters, predator tanks, even a vindicator would be able to blow a rhino up easy enough.

Eldar have a ton of options. Warwalkers, wave serpents, wraithlords, dark reapers, fire Drakes, the list goes on...

Tyranids can use exocrines, biovors, genestealers, warriors in a pinch, heck anything with access to a venom cannon can make those rhinos dissappear.

You get my point. I won't even go into guard / necrons / dark eldar / tau because they all look at rhinos and go "tasty".

But if your playing and staring like 24" away from their gun line and they don't have anything to slow you down / speed bump you then they will die easy. Beserkers are great once they get in that's for sure.

Try playing malestorm of war perhaps? That way your objectives change as you play? It's hard to offer help not knowing why your opponents keep losing, what do they focus fire on when you play? Do they shoot the wrong stuff with the wrong weapons? Are they trying to out fight you in cc? (That would be stupid, not many things can out cc a squad of beserkers that charge )

Here's a question: how much of the problem is related to tactics?

Can only imagine what your list is like, but many armies are not tooled for close combat. A ton of Berzerkers running in just overwhelms them.

Just replacing a squad or two with Cultists could restore some competitive balance.

 Jidmah wrote:
Some people, especially long-time veterans seem to be allergic to winning for some reason.

If I hadn't seen it myself, I wouldn't believe it, but it's true. Some players out there are just committed to not winning for some reason. Out of a medium-small group way up north here in Northern Ontario, Canada, we had one guy that always disliked 40k, but every game I ever saw him play he would seemingly purposefully lose. Back in 7th I told him at the start of our game "Hey, see my Harlequins here? They don't care how tough you are, so your Cultists are about as deadly and resilient to them as you're Terminators. Don't just go head-on against them with your Terminators.". What does he do? Sends the Terminators completely in unsupported. This was because he felt that this is what would happen "in the fluff", and only really cared about recreating a diorama on the tabletop. Unfortunately, since the "story" then didn't pan out the way he wanted it to, he got upset.

Some people get enjoyment out of different parts of the game. So long as everyone's having fun, that's the most important part. If you're not having fun, don't be afraid to say something. "Hey guys, I really want a challenge. Can we have a match where you try to bring your best list and most wicked tactics? I want to see if I can handle it.", or do three-player games with the same kind of thinking. Heck, maybe do some 2-v-2 with that group so that you can coach your team-mate (and pick the weakest player in the group to be your team-mate).

If your list is hard, find harder opponents. The beauty of competitive games is you are never done improving, and theres always someone new to challange. If you think people are bringing softer lists, you can tone down, but my personal opinion would be to seek out the competitive players (or attend some tourneys)