Meta vs everything else.

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.

**Mr Morden**

I tend to play with models I like / have so raiders for DE for example

**TheCaptain**

Makumba wrote:
armies are good because designers want them to be so . If the design team has no idea how to make an army good [case of nids ] then the army sucks . If the design team wants OP , then they get WFB chaos demons killing an edition of playing or necron scyth wing not doing the same to w40k , only because marines make up 60%+ of the game community.
[/quote

First; damn, dem run-on sentences.

Second, I'm sure GW, a game-design company who has been at it for a couple decades now, knows how to make a rulebook overpowered. All Ward-hate aside, he does indeed seem to over-write codex entries. GW obviously knows this, and it seems like they just tack him onto any army they want to sell hard. It works, too; SM got it because...well, they're SM. Who are the other two codices that got the Ward-treatment (which I don't consider a bad thing)? GK and Necrons; both revivals of old codices. You'll be hard pressed to reword an old, weak army and get new players unless they have something making them stand out. The situation is what SoB is dying for now; even if they got a new dex, they wouldn't get a big surge of sales worth the new book unless it was somethin' special. Somethin' Matt ward.

(Hint-hint, Ward; make a new Bolter Bunnies 'dex.)

**MrMoustaffa**

Wow, this thread title is very misleading and leaves no middle ground. Why is there no, "I build my own lists built on a solid strategy, with no gimmicks or copying the meta"?

I don't trust any list that i didn't write myself, no matter how successful. I know what everything in my lists are supposed to do because I wrote them. i don't know why some guy in britain gave all his chimeras extra armor. So yeah, not much more to say there.

**DOOMBREAD**

I prefer non-meta lists, because 1) metalists fit poorly with the fluff, 2) I find no glory in winning with a truly broken list, and 3) running metalists is something I just don't enjoy.

**Chancetragedy**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Wow, this thread title is very misleading and leaves no middle ground. Why is there no, "I build my own lists built on a solid strategy, with no gimmicks or copying the meta"?

I don't trust any list that i didn't write myself, no matter how successful. I know what everything in my lists are supposed to do because I wrote them. i don't know why some guy in britain gave all his chimeras extra armor. So yeah, not much more to say there.

Yah I put other and was about to post this exact same statement. I've written my own list for a few months now. And as soon as I started doing that I started winning. My lists usually include units and things people consider Waac however I very rarely spam these units. But I feel like I got there in a very organic way. And everything I put in my lists I understand how to use, making them work better for me. Things like scouts, and vindicators, and 2hq's

**SaintTom**

I chose tactical because I thought you meant an actually tactical force, one that has units that compliment and support each other without needing spam; not because it's a one trick pony with a gimmick.