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.

I was wondering what everyone thinks of the list building Strategy I have come up. My local Meta likes it and has started to use it when possible and it has created some pretty balanced list and games.

Basically I use the standard 1 HQ and 2 Troops, but before I go beyond that I make sure I also have 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and one Heavy Support. I have also started making sure I have at least one Scoring Unit per 500 points. This is only a Etiquette, if for example if you don’t have any Elite Units, that’s ok. We are not forcing everyone to do this, but most of us like it.

This makes my lists look like this for one of our normal 2,000 point games. [Example: My Space Wolves]
HQ: 1 [Rune Priest]
Elite: 1 [Wolf Scouts]
Troops: 4 [Grey Hunters x4]
Fast Attack: 1 [Land Speeders]
Heavy Support: 1 [Long Fangs\

So far it has worked well, if not causing myself a major pain not taking exactly what I want on every list.

So what do you think?
And what would you call it?

Sounds intresting...
I think I'll try it in game or two, thanks!

I never understood the reason behind such choices, to be honest... why force yourself to use weak units when you can avoid it? Maybe it's just me, but i always try to squeeze the most competitive list i can out of a codex...

Teschio wrote:
I never understood the reason behind such choices, to be honest... why force yourself to use weak units when you can avoid it? Maybe it's just me, but i always try to squeeze the most competitive list i can out of a codex...

This is completely off-topic. The OP obviously wants some criticism on fun, balanced ways to make lists, not the best way to make his opponents cry.

I don't believe that example list you gave is actually 2000pts. Give a real example.

Now, I will say that of my two codices, GK and Daemons, this would only really be possible with one of them, Daemons.
For GK, I think there are several problems, namely, that my Troop choices are generalists. They can get Str7 Rending guns, but it's only 24". How will I effectively deal with an IG Tank list without my Psyflemen? I really need at least two of them, and would prefer three. But before I get to three Heavies, I'll need two elites, right? So I take an assassin....and then I'm stuck, because at this point, I'm at 4 Troops (for 2000pts), two heavies, one elite, one HQ, one fast, and I have 1600pts. I still need an elite and a fast, and there's no way GK can effectively fit that into 400pts. Sure, I could take a Solodin...but who wants to do that? Seems like a waste, and now I'm being forced into building my list in ways I don't want, just to do funny things with the FOC.

Teschio wrote:
I never understood the reason behind such choices, to be honest... why force yourself to use weak units when you can avoid it? Maybe it's just me, but i always try to squeeze the most competitive list i can out of a codex...

Actually within my local Meta this has proven to be quite competitive. Of course if you are talking about specific units I don’t know what to say.
When I play my Loganwing or a Deathwing list I am of course taking Terminators. If I take Space Marines I will take Pedro and replace one of Troop Choices with something else as now my Sternguard is now scoring.

I'm very much in favour of how OP makes his lists.

As an Ork player though, I have to use what works in order to survive. I don't have the luxury of adding further restrictions to my army on top of the overall weakness of the Ork codex.

I would however apply restrictions like this willingly if I knew the opponent was doing the same thing.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm very much in favour of how OP makes his lists.

As an Ork player though, I have to use what works in order to survive. I don't have the luxury of adding further restrictions to my army on top of the overall weakness of the Ork codex.

That’s why we are making it an optional thing, not mandatory.

I would however apply restrictions like this willingly if I knew the opponent was doing the same thing.

That’s when it works best. Though I would love to a Major Tournament use this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is a list using the building Strategy/Etiquette came up with.

Rune Priest in Power Armour, 150 pts (Bolt Pistol; Runic Weapon; Master of Runes; Psyker (Mastery Level 2); Warlord; 6E Psychic Disciplines: Biomancy; Divination; Telekinesis)
Long Fangs Pack, 170 pts (Close Combat Weapon x5; Heavy Bolter x1; Lascannon x2; Missile Launcher x2)
1x Pack Leader (Close Combat Weapon; Flamer x1)
Aegis Defence Lines, 100 pts
1x Gun Emplacement (Quad-gun)

Grey Hunters Pack, 225 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)

Grey Hunters Pack, 225 pts (Bolt Pistol x7; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma gun x2; Plasma Pistol)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)

Grey Hunters Pack, 205 pts (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol x8; Boltgun x7; Close Combat Weapon x8; Flamer x2; Plasma Pistol; Power Sword)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)

Grey Hunters Pack, 205 pts (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol x8; Boltgun x7; Close Combat Weapon x8; Flamer x2; Plasma Pistol; Power Sword)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
Land Speeder Squadron, 270 pts (Land Speeder x3; Fast); Heavy Bolter x3; Typhoon Missile Launcher x3)

Wolf Guard Pack, 280 pts
1x Wolf Guard in Power Armour (Armour; Power Sword x1; Storm Shield x1) [With Flamer Grey Hunters]
1x Wolf Guard in Power Armour (Storm Shield x1; Thunder Hammer x1) [With Flamer Grey Hunters]
2x Wolf Guard in Power Armour (Frost Blade x1; Plasma Pistol x1) [With Plasma Grey Hunters]
1x Wolf Guard in Terminator Armour (Storm Bolter; Power Sword; Cyclone Missile Launcher) [With Long Fangs]

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield)
2x Fenrisian Wolf

Composition Report:
HQ: 1
Elite: 3
Troops: 4
Fast: 1
Heavy: 1
Fort: 1

Total Roster Cost: 2000

You know, the real question here is: why? Do you think this list building restriction helps making "balanced" lists? (actually, i never understood what some people mean with "balanced": i think a list is balanced if it's optimized to deal with a lot of different threats, even if this means spamming some units, some other people think "balanced" means "with a lot of different, inefficient units to provide some variety". Which doesn't guarantee the list is optimized, sometimes it just makes it weaker versus more potential threats... but we are OT here).

The real problem with this system is that some armies are extremely penalized by it (IG doesn't have a single decent Elite choices, or GKs don't have a decent FA unit if you don't want to sell a kidney for a Stormraven, for example), while others don't suffer at all (most highly competitive Tau lists already follow this "restriction", for example). A simple, generalized rule like this is not enough to guarantee "friendly" games.

I must admit i have a competitive nature, but i really don't understand why someone should castrate himself. Expecially with a system that often increases the gap between armies instead of reducing it.

Teschio wrote:
GKs don't have a decent FA unit if you don't want a Stormraven

Wait, what? We get interceptors. Are you saying interceptors are not a decent unit?

Rihgu wrote:
Wait, what? We get interceptors. Are you saying interceptors are not a decent unit?

They would be a decent unit if they were in another codex, maybe. GKs simply have stronger things. They cost too much compared to Strike Squads, they are exactly the same except for mobility (and an Inquisitor with Communion and servoskulls makes up for that wonderfully), and they are not a scoring unit. There must be a reason if not a single highly competitive GK list (the ones you see in major tournaments) uses them, after all...

Once more, this is an Etiquette, if for some reason cant or don’t want to that’s fine.

The main reason I started to do this is when 6th came out, we did this for 6 months to make sure there was a variety units out there to learn as many of the rules possible. Every month we were to use a different list and if you had it a different army. It was also a good learning experience and fum.
After the “Lets Learn 6th Edition Campaign” was over some e of like this and started to use it normaly and we enjoy it. We also like the fact we see units not being played that normally are not. The one Ork player started using his Helicopters and I pulled my Land Speeders off the shelf. Those turned out some of the more fun games with Choppers dog-fighting the Land Speeders.
It also got rid of the SPAM and we now are playing “Objectives” rather than “Clear the Board.”

All I can say is give it a try a few times with another player and see of your play style changes for those friendly games.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Once more, this is an Etiquette, if for some reason cant or don’t want to that’s fine.

The main reason I started to do this is when 6th came out, we did this for 6 months to make sure there was a variety units out there to learn as many of the rules possible. Every month we were to use a different list and if you had it a different army. It was also a good learning experience and fum.
After the “Lets Learn 6th Edition Campaign” was over some e of like this and started to use it normaly and we enjoy it. We also like the fact we see units not being played that normally are not. The one Ork player started using his Helicopters and I pulled my Land Speeders off the shelf. Those turned out some of the more fun games with Choppers dog-fighting the Land Speeders.
It also got rid of the SPAM and we now are playing “Objectives” rather than “Clear the Board.”

All I can say is give it a try a few times with another player and see of your play style changes for those friendly games.

See, if you say "we make lists with different units to try them", it's perfectly fine. The problem is, with the limitations you suggest some armies are not even slightly touched (Tau just to name one of those i use, but others as well), while others are crippled. Every set of limitation just creates a different metagame, sometimes limitations reduce the gap that is physiological between different armies, sometimes they increase it. In this case, they increase it. Most of the highly competitive armies right now are not touched by them or they need to make minimal changes, while other, weaker armies have no chance to win because they already find it hard to field competitive choices, limitations just eliminate what little chances they have.

This strategy is flawed. Most armies have a weak slot. Just build your list troops first then think how to kill tanks and infantry, you don't have to fool every foc slot

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Once more, this is an Etiquette, if for some reason cant or don’t want to that’s fine.

The main reason I started to do this is when 6th came out, we did this for 6 months to make sure there was a variety units out there to learn as many of the rules possible. Every month we were to use a different list and if you had it a different army. It was also a good learning experience and fum.
After the “Lets Learn 6th Edition Campaign” was over some e of like this and started to use it normaly and we enjoy it. We also like the fact we see units not being played that normally are not. The one Ork player started using his Helicopters and I pulled my Land Speeders off the shelf. Those turned out some of the more fun games with Choppers dog-fighting the Land Speeders.
It also got rid of the SPAM and we now are playing “Objectives” rather than “Clear the Board.”

All I can say is give it a try a few times with another player and see of your play style changes for those friendly games.

See, if you say "we make lists with different units to try them", it's perfectly fine. The problem is, with the limitations you suggest some armies are not even slightly touched (Tau just to name one of those i use, but others as well), while others are crippled. Every set of limitation just creates a different metagame, sometimes limitations reduce the gap that is physiological between different armies, sometimes they increase it. In this case, they increase it. Most of the highly competitive armies right now are not touched by them or they need to make minimal changes, while other, weaker armies have no chance to win because they already find it hard to field competitive choices, limitations just eliminate what little chances they have.

Yes, I agree that there ary many, many Meta's that this would be bad with, but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.
We have been duing well with:
>Blood Angels
>Dark Angels
>Grey Knights
>Guard [Though I have been force to play Vet Armies]
>Orks
>Space Marines
>Space Wolves
>Tyranids

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, I agree that there ary many, many Meta's that this would be bad with, but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.
We have been duing well with:
>Blood Angels
>Dark Angels
>Grey Knights
>Guard [Though I have been force to play Vet Armies]
>Orks
>Space Marines
>Space Wolves
>Tyranids

With tyrs, for example, a REALLY competitive list fields 4 scoring units, 3 elites,one or two FAs and at least a HS. So it fits your restrictions perfectly. But it's the exact same army i will play with no restrictions at all! Obviously this would be a big advantage over armies that get screwed by these limitations... see, this limits don't affect all armies. Some are crippled, some are untouched. And be thankful none of your friends play Tau: they are one of the strongest armies right now, and most Tau lists are completely untouched by these limits => practically unbeatable.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, I agree that there ary many, many Meta's that this would be bad with, but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.
We have been duing well with:
>Blood Angels
>Dark Angels
>Grey Knights
>Guard [Though I have been force to play Vet Armies]
>Orks
>Space Marines
>Space Wolves
>Tyranids

With tyrs, for example, a REALLY competitive list fields 4 scoring units, 3 elites,one or two FAs and at least a HS. So it fits your restrictions perfectly. But it's the exact same army i will play with no restrictions at all! Obviously this would be a big advantage over armies that get screwed by these limitations... see, this limits don't affect all armies. Some are crippled, some are untouched. And be thankful none of your friends play Tau: they are one of the strongest armies right now, and most Tau lists are completely untouched by these limits => practically unbeatable.

So what's the Issue or am I reading you wrong?

The issue is: if your aim is to create more balance between list, you are going the wrong way. Some armies are completely untouched by these limitations (meaning that most competitive lists already follow them without knowing them), while others are severely crippled by them because they need to field sub-par units. Instead of reducing the gap between armies, you are effectively increasing it. Your misake is to think these limitations hurt every army in the same way. They don't. I can write you 10 ultra-competitive lists that are only slightly touched by them, or even not touched at all, with armies like Tau, Tyrs, DE, Eldar, etc. While having to write things like IG with Elites or GKs with FA while keeping the same competitivity level is impossible.

The thing is we did not plan on creating this “Balance” it just sort of happened. We found we liked it so I thought I would just pass it on.

Seems fun to me!

As the OP pretty clearly said, all of this is not completely necessary. ("if you don’t have any Elite Units, that’s ok")

I believe he's just trying to make simple way to create a solid core for your armies, that can be tailored further.

And where does it say that you must have as many FA as Elites for example? Nowhere, he just wants to make sure that if possible he wouldn't ignore Fast Attack completely.

As the OP has said several times, this really isn't some must-have holy rule from the Satan himself, but an easy way to ensure that you haven't forgotten something important and thus made too unbalanced list.

 soomemafia wrote:
As the OP has said several times, this really isn't some must-have holy rule from the Satan himself, but an easy way to ensure that you haven't forgotten something important and thus made too unbalanced list.

Ok, i tried to understand what this means, but i really can't... do you think a list is "balanced" if you take different units? "Balance" is not a synonym of "variety", you know... there are extremely unbalanced lists (meaning: lists that are not optimized to deal with different types of enemies) that use a lot of different units, and extremely balanced lists that just spam what's stronger in a codex. This is not always true, but it happens. Balance and performance have nothing to do with slots used.

What you should consider when building a list is not something like "do i have enough FA units?", it should be "how do i deal with hordes", "what can i do versus flyers spam", "do i have enough anti-tank weapons", "do i have a chance vs massive MEQs/TEQs units", "are my scoring units mobile/resistent/numerous enough to claim objectives", "what is my answer to fast assault units" etc. THIS makes a balanced list, not having units from every compartment. Some ultra-competitive armies totally ignore one compartment, and this doesn't make them unbalanced. If you think that a competitive list should necessarily contain a lot of different units to be balanced, we are not playing the same game here.

Teschio wrote:
Ok, i tried to understand what this means, but i really can't... do you think a list is "balanced" if you take different units? "Balance" is not a synonym of "variety", you know... there are extremely unbalanced lists (meaning: lists that are not optimized to deal with different types of enemies) that use a lot of different units, and extremely balanced lists that just spam what's stronger in a codex. This is not always true, but it happens. Balance and performance have nothing to do with slots used.

What you should consider when building a list is not something like "do i have enough FA units?", it should be "how do i deal with hordes", "what can i do versus flyers spam", "do i have enough anti-tank weapons", "do i have a chance vs massive MEQs/TEQs units", "are my scoring units mobile/resistent/numerous enough to claim objectives", "what is my answer to fast assault units" etc. THIS makes a balanced list, not having units from every compartment. Some ultra-competitive armies totally ignore one compartment, and this doesn't make them unbalanced. If you think that a competitive list should necessarily contain a lot of different units to be balanced, we are not playing the same game here.

As one of my fellow players put it; “Overspecialization Breeds in Weakness”.

I have seen many a list torn apart be having just one thing as their focus, look at the ALL Assault Armies; they are fun to play, but takes real skill to win with. Gunlines are doing well in 6th, but a good Pod Drop or a trio of Helldrakes can make this a useless strategy.

The other thing comes from this:
Our local Meta has developed into a “Take on All Comers” Meta. I don’t know what I am facing until about 10 min before the game normally and the same goes with my opponent. So I can’t go “Am I facing a Horde”” or “Do “I have enough Anti-Air?” until we roll to se what mission we are playing.
Now we know each others armies real well and I know if I am fighting Nids or Orks I am dealing with a Horde Army and Marines I don’t have to worry about AV14 as I am the only one with Land Raiders.
This set up also means it’s hard to make a SPAM list, so that is not a problem.
I also have a 1 in 3 chance that my Fast Attack or Heavy Support becoming a Scoring unit, giving me 5+ Scoring Units, 6+ if I run a Pedro/Sternguard List.

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

 Anpu42 wrote:

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

I like your idea, and use that basic philosophy when making my own lists. While not a hard and fast rule, taking something from every FOC slot lends itself to a balanced TAC list. It is worth considering that what battlefield role a units fills is often not the same as it's slot suggests. So when putting together a TAC list, you need to keep the jobs you need done first and foremost in your mind. As a Ultramarine player, I have the luxury of being able to swap weapons on a lot of different platforms to do what I need them to do. Not every codex can do that.

As for how I make my blind TAC lists (which is every list I build)

Start with core HQ+2xTroops
Add units I want to use
Add units to fill the roles not covered with the fun stuff.

There is a sort of tiered internal checklist that I tick off as I'm building.

Tier 1, not optional: Does this list conform to the rules?
Tier 2, optional, but strongly encouraged: Is this a viable list? Do I have ways of dealing with flyers/heavy armor/hordes/etc?
Tier 3, Things I like, but aren't required. Do I have something from ever FOC slot? Fresh paint on the table? Units I've not fielded in a while? Some new trick?

While 3rd in priority, third tier stuff often drives what goes in my list. The issue is that I generally have more stuff in that bracket then I have points in my list, so some gets set aside for the next game. I would like to include as much tier 3 stuff as I can, I should have tier 2 covered, and I must follow tier 1.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

I like your idea, and use that basic philosophy when making my own lists. While not a hard and fast rule, taking something from every FOC slot lends itself to a balanced TAC list. It is worth considering that what battlefield role a units fills is often not the same as it's slot suggests. So when putting together a TAC list, you need to keep the jobs you need done first and foremost in your mind. As a Ultramarine player, I have the luxury of being able to swap weapons on a lot of different platforms to do what I need them to do. Not every codex can do that.

As for how I make my blind TAC lists (which is every list I build)

Start with core HQ+2xTroops
Add units I want to use
Add units to fill the roles not covered with the fun stuff.

There is a sort of tiered internal checklist that I tick off as I'm building.

Tier 1, not optional: Does this list conform to the rules?
Tier 2, optional, but strongly encouraged: Is this a viable list? Do I have ways of dealing with flyers/heavy armor/hordes/etc?
Tier 3, Things I like, but aren't required. Do I have something from ever FOC slot? Fresh paint on the table? Units I've not fielded in a while? Some new trick?

While 3rd in priority, third tier stuff often drives what goes in my list. The issue is that I generally have more stuff in that bracket then I have points in my list, so some gets set aside for the next game. I would like to include as much tier 3 stuff as I can, I should have tier 2 covered, and I must follow tier 1.

I tend to Take the Units I Want before the Units I Need after fulfilling the Core, but that has more to do with I prefer “Fluff/Fun List” above “Competitive List” most of the time.
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

 Anpu42 wrote:
As one of my fellow players put it; “Overspecialization Breeds in Weakness”.

I have seen many a list torn apart be having just one thing as their focus, look at the ALL Assault Armies; they are fun to play, but takes real skill to win with. Gunlines are doing well in 6th, but a good Pod Drop or a trio of Helldrakes can make this a useless strategy.

The other thing comes from this:
Our local Meta has developed into a “Take on All Comers” Meta. I don’t know what I am facing until about 10 min before the game normally and the same goes with my opponent. So I can’t go “Am I facing a Horde”” or “Do “I have enough Anti-Air?” until we roll to se what mission we are playing.
Now we know each others armies real well and I know if I am fighting Nids or Orks I am dealing with a Horde Army and Marines I don’t have to worry about AV14 as I am the only one with Land Raiders.
This set up also means it’s hard to make a SPAM list, so that is not a problem.
I also have a 1 in 3 chance that my Fast Attack or Heavy Support becoming a Scoring unit, giving me 5+ Scoring Units, 6+ if I run a Pedro/Sternguard List.

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

Overspecialization may very well result in weakness. The trick is to use units that are good at more than one thing. Take the new Eldars, for example: a Wave Serpent has excellent saturation (anti-horde, and saturation helps vs MEQs too, while TEQs will die with shuricatapults), it's mobile and allows troops to survive/reach objectives, can double as a decent AA source, can take care of lighter vehicles, can run from fast assault units until you have gunned them down, and with holo-fields it's quite survivable as well. Therefore, spamming them takes care of multiple problems at one. You need something for heavy tanks (which means a few Bright Lances here and there, i particularly like units of 2 war walkers with dual lance, that with a Farseer's Guide can double as good AA too). Some Fire Dragons, also on Serpent, can be effective too. See, the difference is that you say "i need to take a Heavy Support unit so my list will be balanced", i say "i need to take something that can reduce my list's weakness versus a specific kind of unit". I don't care which slot it is, i care what a unit does.

That said, every list has its weaknesses, the trick is to reduce them as much as possible, and to know your meta: i don't care if my list autoloses vs a certain enemy, as long as this enemy is rarely seen on table and the list itself is strong enough to win versus most of the things i will normally face. In my opinion, this is the best way to build a TAC list: being mainly a tornament player, i ALWAYS build TAC lists... i can't, for example, build a list without AA, because i know my meta is flyer intensive and i would lose too many games. You say you don't have to worry about AV14 while i do, because i have no idea what i will face... my lists have to be ready for anything. If you want to build a real TAC list, stop thinking about slots and start thinking about potential threats and how to deal with them.

I like this approach, because it should tend to limit "spam" lists. I don't think it is about "balance" - choosing to use different units can inject some interest and variety into the game.

I am in favour of this type of list building restrictions for local clubs. Unfortunately there are far too many WAAC players who turn up to my local game nights with top tier tournament forces and try to table you in first 2 turns. Anything that pushes for a more balanced approach for army lists rather than a WAAC mentality is good in my eyes.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

The word i don't really like is "reasonably". It may just be me, or the fact that my environment is highly competitive (being mostly tournaments), but if a list is not the strongest thing i can squeeze out of a codex, i don't play it. Why should you limit yourself to reasonably competitive lists, when you can build really competitive ones? I never understood self-imposed limitations, and i guess i never will. Because what you are suggesting is not a way to build a balanced list, it's a limitation. Pure and simple.

Teschio wrote:
Said Stuff

I am sorry you feel you can’t build a competitive list this way.
I have run "WAAC List" and “Net Approved Competitive List” to be honest they bore the out of me now.
One of my favorite lists breaks every rule I now build with now [1,500 points of Spaces Wolves using only 13 Models]
After 3 Decades of Warhammer 40k my philosophy of playing has evolved to the point I just want to enjoy the game, so when something new comes up I try it and if it is fun I keep it up.
I have found this List Etiquette/Style to be FUN for me and my group find it FUN and I was hoping others would find it FUN, what is so hard about that is it to understand.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

The word i don't really like is "reasonably". It may just be me, or the fact that my environment is highly competitive (being mostly tournaments), but if a list is not the strongest thing i can squeeze out of a codex, i don't play it. Why should you limit yourself to reasonably competitive lists, when you can build really competitive ones? I never understood self-imposed limitations, and i guess i never will. Because what you are suggesting is not a way to build a balanced list, it's a limitation. Pure and simple.

True. At the same time, unless all the players at every tournament are exactly the same experience (and therefore the list makes the difference), a list incorporating different but not uncompetitive units played by a player who has a strategy to effectively use should be just as effective. And, as the OP said, this was adopted by many players in his group. I reckon this is a great way to get some variety in the lists.