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.

 Ailaros wrote:
By "moves away the minimum possible distance", I assume they mean still with a 1" buffer? I can't imagine you'd be able to throw hits down on a vehicle after. Also, how would he be able to throw something off the board? Seems like your opponent could just move the vehicle in a slightly different direction to avoid this.

So you've forced your opponent to move, and break his gunline. Mission accomplished. Gunlines weaken as soon as they start moving. Mawlocs cause this, either by forcefully shoving tanks in whatever direction (which could end up being off the board, onto impassable terrain, or onto other vehicles, all of which cause the vehicle to be destroyed), disrupting their gunline, or forcing your opponent to start moving when he realises his gunline is about to be trashed, disrupting their gunline. Your army has more than Mawlocs in it. Mawlocs are just the things that break the gunline.

I feel like you have an answer for it all since you play IG. When I played IG I never found something that couldn't be countered by them. Storm Troopers with Flamers and AA, Griffons and other Artillery would solve a gunline problem like cake. Put your units in Chimeras and wait until your arty downs the big threats, than move up? I mean, you can always solve things with bigger guns!

@ loki: what would a 3x malwock nidzilla list look like? I assume it would be the HSs, a tervigon and then either a tervigon or a hive tyrant.

One of the things I'm starting to put together is information on how much things would cost, and it would be nice to have a sample list to draw from.

As for IG, yeah, I'm working on it. It's a tough problem though. If all I wanted to do was win games, then yeah, I could easily put together a list with a couple russes, minimum troops and maximum vendettas, but what kind of an experience would I be providing for the other gamer?

 Ailaros wrote:
@ loki: what would a 3x malwock nidzilla list look like? I assume it would be the HSs, a tervigon and then either a tervigon or a hive tyrant.

One of the things I'm starting to put together is information on how much things would cost, and it would be nice to have a sample list to draw from.

As for IG, yeah, I'm working on it. It's a tough problem though. If all I wanted to do was win games, then yeah, I could easily put together a list with a couple russes, minimum troops and maximum vendettas, but what kind of an experience would I be providing for the other gamer?

You would be proving a point. If you feel so against these types of list and actually deem them as bad (which I probably would not, I would just find excitement in the challenge over overcoming it with my current army) than show them what it is like when the situation is flipped around. Play them with that list, murder them, than explain that you hate this list but you also hate gunlines and to make this point you played this game. Either the person will be like "man screw you" which you are already feeling towards them, or they will get the point and vow never to play a static list against you again. I guess I just don't see how going to a different Codex and tailoring to beat these type of lists are any different than tailoring with your IG to beat them. To me, it just sounds like you want to melee a gunline....as you currently play one of the armies that can counter anything. If that is the case....go BT!!!!! We drop pod in, you shoot us, we run at you more!!

Be a TFG to beat a TFG? Sorry, but...

Ailaros wrote:There is only one condition that I'm going to place on this otherwise open-ended question, and that is that I don't want to PLAY any of the armies that I hate. I refuse to propagate the problem in an attempt to solve the problem.

... I already ruled that out in the OP.

I find it better not to feed the trolls, in any case.

 Ailaros wrote:
Be a TFG to beat a TFG? Sorry, but...

Ailaros wrote:There is only one condition that I'm going to place on this otherwise open-ended question, and that is that I don't want to PLAY any of the armies that I hate. I refuse to propagate the problem in an attempt to solve the problem.

... I already ruled that out in the OP.

I find it better not to feed the trolls, in any case.

I don't see how taking you current style and giving them some heavy artillery (which is what I originally suggested) would be an army you hate. Granted yes, you brought up going full Vendetta list and tailoring totally which would also work like I said. But how is just adding in a critical support component forming a list you hate?

It doesn't. Adding a few artillery pieces wouldn't solve the problem, though. I've been playing guard for years now, and there hasn't been an easy, acceptable solution. If there was, I wouldn't have bothered creating this thread.

In any case, it's not a matter of how can I make the army I have work less poorly in these circumstances. It's a matter of what armies are good in these circumstances in the first place.

 Ailaros wrote:
It doesn't. Adding a few artillery pieces wouldn't solve the problem, though. I've been playing guard for years now, and there hasn't been an easy, acceptable solution. If there was, I wouldn't have bothered creating this thread.

In any case, it's not a matter of how can I make the army I have work less poorly in these circumstances. It's a matter of what armies are good in these circumstances in the first place.

Why not suggest to your FLGS and your opponents that you play NOVA style missions? There you have pre-placed objectives. You need to be able to access different locations on the board to contest quarters and then the kill points are not as clear cut. Plus all the other stuff that's annoying like first blood and war lord kills are just tie breakers.

These styles of missions encourage movement and coming to grips with the enemy.

 Ailaros wrote:
It doesn't. Adding a few artillery pieces wouldn't solve the problem, though. I've been playing guard for years now, and there hasn't been an easy, acceptable solution. If there was, I wouldn't have bothered creating this thread.

In any case, it's not a matter of how can I make the army I have work less poorly in these circumstances. It's a matter of what armies are good in these circumstances in the first place.

Well my vote would be Black Templars. They are quite fun!

 Ailaros wrote:
Be a TFG to beat a TFG? Sorry, but...

Ailaros wrote:There is only one condition that I'm going to place on this otherwise open-ended question, and that is that I don't want to PLAY any of the armies that I hate. I refuse to propagate the problem in an attempt to solve the problem.

... I already ruled that out in the OP.

I find it better not to feed the trolls, in any case.

You're already acting like a TFG and feeding the trolls. You're on the internet asking us to suggest to you a faction and a list for that faction that specifically counters a type of list that you dislike.

That is literally the exact same concept behind list tailoring. Thus, you are a TFG. Starting up a Grey Knights army specifically because you hate daemon lists and want to beat their faces in is TFG behavior. Starting up some tri-Mawlock Tyranid list, even though you don't even play Tyranids, specifically so that you can beat up gunlines is the same thing.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Be a TFG to beat a TFG? Sorry, but...

Ailaros wrote:There is only one condition that I'm going to place on this otherwise open-ended question, and that is that I don't want to PLAY any of the armies that I hate. I refuse to propagate the problem in an attempt to solve the problem.

... I already ruled that out in the OP.

I find it better not to feed the trolls, in any case.

You're already acting like a TFG and feeding the trolls. You're on the internet asking us to suggest to you a faction and a list for that faction that specifically counters a type of list that you dislike.

That is literally the exact same concept behind list tailoring. Thus, you are a TFG. Starting up a Grey Knights army specifically because you hate daemon lists and want to beat their faces in is TFG behavior. Starting up some tri-Mawlock Tyranid list, even though you don't even play Tyranids, specifically so that you can beat up gunlines is the same thing.

Not true. His question is not how to beat gunlines. He knows how to beat gunlines. His question is asking us to draw on our experience to help him find an army that fits into his play style and what he wants from a 40k game.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:TBH the "problem" lists in question aren't the problem, the problem is that some players don't want to bring the tools to deal with them.

I tried to explain this in my OP, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. My problem isn't "I hate losing" nor is it "I don't like playing against strong lists.

My problem is that, no matter how much strategic sense it makes, playing the game to shut down your opponent's ability to do stuff is TFG behavior. The point of playing a game of 40k is for both players to be able to actually play a game. If your opponent brings an assault army, and you systematically deny your opponent's ability to get into assault, then what is your opponent actually getting out of the game? Nothing. Eventually people will (rightly) stop playing you because they don't actually get to PLAY when they're playing against you.

If, in a game of 40k, you're the only one playing, then you're really just playing with yourself, with another person present. It's this kind of abhorrent behavior that I'm trying to countermand.

And to do so in a way that shuts down TFG players without also succumbing to the same kind of list.

You make a valid point, but use a bad example.

The only example I can think of is Grey Knights using Warp Quake spam to shut down Daemons.

If you take a footslogging list and can't get into combat with fast enemy units, that's your problem, and your fault. Not the other players.

 Ailaros wrote:
As for IG, yeah, I'm working on it. It's a tough problem though. If all I wanted to do was win games, then yeah, I could easily put together a list with a couple russes, minimum troops and maximum vendettas, but what kind of an experience would I be providing for the other gamer?

An easy victory for your opponent, honestly, when the tanks die to melta and the Vendettas crowd the board and run out of targets. I've used the whole "minimum troops, maximum firepower" IG list, and the most likely result is a few turns of awesome shooting followed by the minimum troops getting shot off the board and losing the game on objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor wrote:
If you take a footslogging list and can't get into combat with fast enemy units, that's your problem, and your fault. Not the other players.

This x100.

Let's say I play Tau. Am I TFG just because of my choice of army? Or am I only TFG if I don't suicidally send my units out into assault so you can slaughter them and have "fun", instead of doing the sensible thing and staying out of your range? And why aren't YOU the TFG for taking a bad list and forcing me to use a bad strategy or suffer your complaints about my "abhorrent behavior"?

Now, you might have a point if you were talking about bringing a specific overpowered tournament list to a casual game, but you're essentially calling entire armies and strategic archetypes "TFG". The game isn't that broken, and the strategies in question have counters. At some point it stops being a case of game balance and the blame goes to you for not making use of all the tools, just like the TFG is the Magic player who refuses to play anything cheap enough to appear before the 5th turn, not the player who brings a deck that can win in four turns (but is still weak in tournaments).

Kaldor wrote:If you take a footslogging list and can't get into combat with fast enemy units, that's your problem, and your fault. Not the other players.

Being in a social environment and not caring about what's happening to other people in that environment is sociopathic. For a clearer example, it's like saying "If we have sex, and you don't like it, that's YOUR fault".

Plus, we live in an imperfect world of imbalanced codices and not always the best thought out rules. What I'm trying to do is find a way between "play a kind of army that you hate in order to beat up armies that you hate" and "You're not going to be able to play the army you want and be anywhere near successful, so you should just quit". The like it or leave it attitude is a good way to cut down whining, but it doesn't leave as many options open as I'm looking for.

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:Well my vote would be Black Templars. They are quite fun!

Actually, the first time I played drop pods was in the same game I first played black templar (back in 4th ed), and it was scary. I suppose my concern with them is that their codex is horribly out of date, and we don't know when we'll get a new one. It would be sort of like starting up a sisters army now, or a DE army a couple of years ago.

I suppose that's part of the problem as well. Like demons, I just don't know a whole lot about them other than a few cursory details (like that they can take a lot of land raiders, etc.). How would BT be a better choice than vanilla marines here?

 Ailaros wrote:

Actually, the first time I played drop pods was in the same game I first played Black Templar (back in 4th ed), and it was scary. I suppose my concern with them is that their codex is horribly out of date, and we don't know when we'll get a new one.

The reason for that is they don't really need it. They have some negatives over C:SM and some positives over it. Not only can they be very effective in melee but they can also be really good in mass missile shooting.

 Ailaros wrote:
Being in a social environment and not caring about what's happening to other people in that environment is sociopathic. For a clearer example, it's like saying "If we have sex, and you don't like it, that's YOUR fault".

Exactly. Which is why the person who brings a footslogging assault army, fails to get into range, and then refuses to do anything to change their strategy/list is TFG. They expect everyone else to sacrifice fun (since making bad strategic choices isn't fun) so that they don't have to invest the effort required to use the available tools and win on their own merits. And, needless to say, they never offer to buy/build/paint the new models required to build a more "fun" army for them to play against. I think that's a pretty good sign of a sociopath, don't you?

Conclusion: if one player has an obligation to change their list to ensure fun for both players, BOTH players have that obligation.

Plus, we live in an imperfect world of imbalanced codices and not always the best thought out rules. What I'm trying to do is find a way between "play a kind of army that you hate in order to beat up armies that you hate" and "You're not going to be able to play the army you want and be anywhere near successful, so you should just quit". The like it or leave it attitude is a good way to cut down whining, but it doesn't leave as many options open as I'm looking for.

Sorry, but any standard of "too powerful" that includes the entire Tau codex, one of the weakest in the game (and from 3rd edition!) is a flawed standard. If you can't have fun against such a wide range of opponents at completely different power levels, it's a sign that the problem is YOU, not your opponents.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:If you take a footslogging list and can't get into combat with fast enemy units, that's your problem, and your fault. Not the other players.

Being in a social environment and not caring about what's happening to other people in that environment is sociopathic.

Quite.

But that's not what's happening here. You have a very specific way you want to play the game, and the way you want to play the game results in you losing a lot. So your options are:

1 - Play the way you want, and lose. Obviously, this doesn't appeal to you.

2 - Make other people play the way you want. This is not going to appeal to them.

3 - Play a different way.

4 - Play a different game.

Now, the game is what it is. People are going to use their units to the best of their abilities, and that's how it should be. Some types of armies (like footslogging guard) are going to struggle, especially against some particular match-ups. The problem here is not that people use their units to the best of their abilities, it's that you're taking a poorly constructed list. You can't take an un-competitive list, and then insist everyone else not use their units to the best of their abilities so that your list can become competitive.

"I know you're entitled to move away 6" and still shoot me, but do you think you could move towards me, and attempt to assault me instead? It'd be more fun for me, and if you don't do it you're a sociopath because you don't care about me having fun. You don't want to be a sociopath, do you?"

Do you see how that's a little nuts?

 Kaldor wrote:
"I know you're entitled to move away 6" and still shoot me, but do you think you could move towards me, and attempt to assault me instead? It'd be more fun for me, and if you don't do it you're a sociopath because you don't care about me having fun. You don't want to be a sociopath, do you?"

Don't forget the part where "move towards me" results in "I slaughter your unit while taking no losses", not "we have a dramatic combat where both players are equally likely to win and every roll of the dice is exciting". IOW, "throw away your unit for no gain or you're a sociopath who hates fun".

Let's tone down the rhetoric, folks. If you don't want to provide useful suggestions within the context of the original request, then move along; there's nothing for you here.

So, if I get it right, you want my tau to go to the blood angels so they blood angles will get to "play"?

Heck no! i am getting the frell away from them! If they charge ANY unit in my codex, they are instantly wiped out, and in most cases wont even land a single wound on the angels.

The game is not a 2 phase game of "assault" and "shoot", it has "movement" as well, and a proper way to beat a gunline with assault is to MOVE properly.

If, by definition, doing anything to shut down what your opponent is down is "TFG", the anyone who assaults tau is a TFG, because Tau got nothing short of 1 named HQ that can do anything in assault.

Its not fun when somebody shuts down your strategy?
Heck no! I'd have much more fun fighting a loosing battle against a BA army that dashes to me, and chases down my units one by one as I desperately attempt to gun them down before I die then fight a bunch of foot sluggers that are not even fast at it, who just walk into range and get decimated in waves against my pulse rifles.

FORCE me to change my tactics, FORCE me to adapt, FORCE me to fight under your own terms, because under my own I will always win-and I will quickly get bored.
And while that assault army will try to flank, deep strike, go around, use cover and trick my target assessment to get enough units close to my forces to kill them, I will work on creating roadblocks, harassing his units, and trying gunning down his units.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:If you take a footslogging list and can't get into combat with fast enemy units, that's your problem, and your fault. Not the other players.

Being in a social environment and not caring about what's happening to other people in that environment is sociopathic.

Quite.

But that's not what's happening here. You have a very specific way you want to play the game, and the way you want to play the game results in you losing a lot. So your options are:

1 - Play the way you want, and lose. Obviously, this doesn't appeal to you.

2 - Make other people play the way you want. This is not going to appeal to them.

3 - Play a different way.

4 - Play a different game.

Now, the game is what it is. People are going to use their units to the best of their abilities, and that's how it should be. Some types of armies (like footslogging guard) are going to struggle, especially against some particular match-ups. The problem here is not that people use their units to the best of their abilities, it's that you're taking a poorly constructed list. You can't take an un-competitive list, and then insist everyone else not use their units to the best of their abilities so that your list can become competitive.

"I know you're entitled to move away 6" and still shoot me, but do you think you could move towards me, and attempt to assault me instead? It'd be more fun for me, and if you don't do it you're a sociopath because you don't care about me having fun. You don't want to be a sociopath, do you?"

Do you see how that's a little nuts?

This. The problem is one the OP has made for himself by prissily disdaining competition, and labelling anybody who doesn't approach the game in exactly the way he wants as TFG or a sociopath.

There's a particular irony to the "not caring about others" remark, when the OP evidently has no concern for the fact that for other players' fun can indeed depend upon enjoying the kind of competitive challenge he refuses to provide.

 Ailaros wrote:

Actually, the first time I played drop pods was in the same game I first played black templar (back in 4th ed), and it was scary. I suppose my concern with them is that their codex is horribly out of date, and we don't know when we'll get a new one. It would be sort of like starting up a sisters army now, or a DE army a couple of years ago.

Black Templars are unfortunately in a dire situation right now. If you want a close-in drop pod army, I think Space Wolves would be your best bet. Deep striking Grey Hunter squads are tough, can take charges and give them, and are fairly cheap. Wolf Guard have lots of options to tool up for a drop podding special weapon squad with tons of combi-plasma, flamer, and melta shots. You can drop Dreadnoughts too, even if they're not as good these days. They also have some of the best psykers in the game, and access to 4 of them in a standard game.

Hmm, I'd forgotten about psychic marines. I honestly wouldn't have given them a second (well, first) thought had they not just changed the rules for psykers.

Other than more magic and a few extra stray chainswords, what do space wolves offer that marines don't?

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Actually, the first time I played drop pods was in the same game I first played black templar (back in 4th ed), and it was scary. I suppose my concern with them is that their codex is horribly out of date, and we don't know when we'll get a new one. It would be sort of like starting up a sisters army now, or a DE army a couple of years ago.

Black Templars are unfortunately in a dire situation right now. If you want a close-in drop pod army, I think Space Wolves would be your best bet. Deep striking Grey Hunter squads are tough, can take charges and give them, and are fairly cheap. Wolf Guard have lots of options to tool up for a drop podding special weapon squad with tons of combi-plasma, flamer, and melta shots. You can drop Dreadnoughts too, even if they're not as good these days. They also have some of the best psykers in the game, and access to 4 of them in a standard game.

What is so dire about our situation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, I'd forgotten about psychic marines. I honestly wouldn't have given them a second (well, first) thought had they not just changed the rules for psykers.

Other than more magic and a few extra stray chainswords, what do space wolves offer that marines don't?

Long Fangs and more of everything on the cheap just because. Thunderwolf Cavalry as well.

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, I'd forgotten about psychic marines. I honestly wouldn't have given them a second (well, first) thought had they not just changed the rules for psykers.

Other than more magic and a few extra stray chainswords, what do space wolves offer that marines don't?

They offer similar things but cheaper and better.

The basic Space Wolf marine is better than an average marine. A Grey Hunter gets bolt pistol, bolter and close combat weapon. They also get acute senses and counter-attack.

In a squad of 10 the second special weapon is free. So a 10 man squad of grey hunters with 2 melta guns costs a rhino less than an equivalent tactical squad. (Also I thought that the marine prices were the same as CSM prices and thus found out that I've been getting ripped off on special weapon prices)

I guess you lose combat tactics. But the benefits seem to outweigh the loses. If I didn't dislike the Wolves on principle I'd gladly play them.

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

What is so dire about our situation?

They don't fight in close combat as well as the other close combat Marine armies, don't have sergeants to eat challenges or make challenges, get a woeful single attack on power fists in their squads, can be kited fairly easily, and are better at shooting than they are at close combat. They also pay extra points for grenades and cost a lot for what you get, especially compared to Space Wolves. I like Black Templars a lot and really hope they can get a kickass codex at some point, but I don't think they're in a good place right now as they're 2 editions out of date.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

What is so dire about our situation?

They don't fight in close combat as well as the other close combat Marine armies, don't have sergeants to eat challenges or make challenges, get a woeful single attack on power fists in their squads, can be kited fairly easily, and are better at shooting than they are at close combat. They also pay extra points for grenades and cost a lot for what you get, especially compared to Space Wolves. I like Black Templars a lot and really hope they can get a kickass codex at some point, but I don't think they're in a good place right now as they're 2 editions out of date.

And now we don't even do gunline well, as we're forced to run out of cover any time someone in a squad dies...

Yeah, BT seems like it definitely has an old codex problem. Back around the time BT got their current codex, it was standard practice to give an army A thing it did better than anyone else. Tau was a shooty army, that was all. Orks were 4 choppin. That was all.

Since then, though, codex paradigm has dictated that most armies should be able to do most things reasonably well. BA went from a gunline army to one that could shoot or chop, fast or slow, etc.

As such, it makes sense that BT, once having a relative monopoly on SM CC capabilities, is now outclassed, because, unlike more recent codices, it can really only do one thing well, and even then, it now has serious competition from other armies (other armies which can now also do other things well in addition to the one thing BT does well).

Looking at your battle report series with the guard leads me to a conclusion on how to "fix" your problem, without ever needing to switch armies.

Get one of the following:
1-quick units.
2-long range units.

You lack them both, leaving you at a constant tactical disadvantage. you cant threat crucial enemy units if they do a simple walk around your limited reach. not even a slow-moving one.

What you lack is not power, nor armor. you lack the ability to hit things that try to stay away from you. and by that you are forced to play the enemy's plan. you have no zone control or area denial units, and its impossible to set the tone as such.

And as I have learned the hard way, when the opponent sets the tone as he pleases, you will be decimated, and quickly.

BoomWolf wrote:What you lack is not power, nor armor. you lack the ability to hit things that try to stay away from you.

Welcome to my entire experience playing Imperial Guard.

In 5th, I could use power blobs to swamp my opponents. Now that infantry don't survive past turn 2 or 3, it's not possible to actually be aggressive enough to really take the initiative like I used to.

Stormies do help a fair bit with this, though.