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.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 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”.

You'll note that the order I build lists is not the same as which of my tiers is more important. My rough draft lists are full of fun and pure preference. But when refining a list, I err on the side of covering all my bases and building a TAC list. And sometimes that means that stuff gets trimmed. I might want to field my new Cassius conversion, in my LR (which is getting dusty and wants to see combat again) as well as experiment with a hurricane bolter ironclad walking across the table, but points are tight, so one gets left behind. I'm too much of a gamer to bring something dysfunctional to the table.

But I am a firm believer that everything can be used. It's OK to use wacky or sub-par units. And often fun and fluffy. But you need to build an army to support them. If you bring too many of them in one list, the whole thing just falls apart and you end up spending the day getting your teeth kicked in. Which is not how I enjoy spending my very limited play time. Fun, Fluffy, and Competitive are not mutually exclusive.

If I end up with something that isn't a TAC list that I think will work on the table, I keep refining it. On the flip side, if a list has no soul, butchers the fluff, and/or I think it would be boring to play, I work it over just as hard until I find something that will make for a fun game.

 Gandohar wrote:
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.

I guess we have different ideas about what the word "balanced" means....i think a balanced list is a list that can face different enemies and be effective versus them. Sometimes this means a spam list, sometimes it doesn't. One thing is sure, "balance" and "variety" are two completely different things. Keeping the Eldar example, a list i think is quite competitive is spamming Wave Serpents plus some Fire Prisms and War Walkers. Counting bikes where i put the Farseer, this list uses only 4 types of units (bikes, serpents, prisms, ww). Is it unbalanced? No it's not, because it has the potential to deal with a lot of different things.

I admit i am close to what you call WAAC mentality.., actually no, for me it's not about winning, i like to spend weeks optimizing a list, and when i test it i don't want to win easily, if i table you in 3 turns the test is useless. I want to face another top tier list and to have to sweat hard to beat it. I may be weird, but i think that using fluffy lists is a sort of lack of respect for your opponent: if i respect you, i try as hard as i can to beat you because i consider you a worthy opponent.

Furthermore, you tend to forget the real problem here: these restrictions don't affect all armies in the same way, they cripple some and leave others unscathed. With Tau, for example, one of the list i use (which i think it's quite competitive) fits this restrictions perfectly. Which means that if versus a regular list i table it in 5 turns, versus a list crippled by these limitation it will take me 4 or even 3 turn to do it. This limitations don't reduce the gap, they increase it.

 Nevelon wrote:
You'll note that the order I build lists is not the same as which of my tiers is more important. My rough draft lists are full of fun and pure preference. But when refining a list, I err on the side of covering all my bases and building a TAC list. And sometimes that means that stuff gets trimmed. I might want to field my new Cassius conversion, in my LR (which is getting dusty and wants to see combat again) as well as experiment with a hurricane bolter ironclad walking across the table, but points are tight, so one gets left behind. I'm too much of a gamer to bring something dysfunctional to the table.

This what I have spent the last year doing, dusting off stuff and giving it a chance to “Blow the out of Something”!

But I am a firm believer that everything can be used. It's OK to use wacky or sub-par units. And often fun and fluffy. But you need to build an army to support them. If you bring too many of them in one list, the whole thing just falls apart and you end up spending the day getting your teeth kicked in. Which is not how I enjoy spending my very limited play time. Fun, Fluffy, and Competitive are not mutually exclusive.

Yes! and I have been finding this Etiquette/Style is letting me support them.

If I end up with something that isn't a TAC list that I think will work on the table, I keep refining it. On the flip side, if a list has no soul, butchers the fluff, and/or I think it would be boring to play, I work it over just as hard until I find something that will make for a fun game.

I feel so much like this recently.

 Anpu42 wrote:
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.

Absolutely nothing. The thing is, you didn't say "this is how i build a fun list". If you did, i wouldn't have answered to this topic. You used the word strategy in the topic title, and there is nothing strategic about limitations. Then, you said this system helps to build balanced list, while it does not. THIS is the point i object to. There is nothing strategic nor balancing in this system, it's just a bunch of limitations that often increase the gap instead of reducing it. If you want to play fluffy, there's nothing wrong with it. Just don't try to pass this as a list building strategy or as a way to have balanced lists, because it's not.

Teschio wrote:

Furthermore, you tend to forget the real problem here: these restrictions don't affect all armies in the same way, they cripple some and leave others unscathed. With Tau, for example, one of the list i use (which i think it's quite competitive) fits this restrictions perfectly. Which means that if versus a regular list i table it in 5 turns, versus a list crippled by these limitation it will take me 4 or even 3 turn to do it. This limitations don't reduce the gap, they increase it.

I don't think the OP is suggesting that you would "cripple" your list. Rather that you select a different combination of units in order to promote some variety in the meta.

MarkCron wrote:
I don't think the OP is suggesting that you would "cripple" your list. Rather that you select a different combination of units in order to promote some variety in the meta.

He actually said

 Anpu42 wrote:
but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.

And as i said, if the aim is to build fluffy lists or promote underused units, that's perfect. Just don't call it strategy, and don't claim it increases balance.

Teschio wrote:
I guess we have different ideas about what the word "balanced" means....i think a balanced list is a list that can face different enemies and be effective versus them. Sometimes this means a spam list, sometimes it doesn't. One thing is sure, "balance" and "variety" are two completely different things.

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

Keeping the Eldar example, a list i think is quite competitive is spamming Wave Serpents plus some Fire Prisms and War Walkers. Counting bikes where i put the Farseer, this list uses only 4 types of units (bikes, serpents, prisms, ww). Is it unbalanced? No it's not, because it has the potential to deal with a lot of different things.

And?

I admit i am close to what you call WAAC mentality.., actually no, for me it's not about winning, i like to spend weeks optimizing a list, and when i test it i don't want to win easily, if i table you in 3 turns the test is useless. I want to face another top tier list and to have to sweat hard to beat it. I may be weird, but i think that using fluffy lists is a sort of lack of respect for your opponent: if i respect you, i try as hard as i can to beat you because i consider you a worthy opponent.

I do know how you feel about wanting a Challenge in your games, but if I pull out a Fluffy List I am not disrespecting you, I am just playing what I want and Fluffy and Competitive can be the some time.
This were we are different. I have been playing my Space Wolves since 1989. they have evolved since them, but the “Core”, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Land Speeders, and Long Fangs I don’t have to think about, I know what they do and how to use them. These have become my “Core”. I am still working on my Wolf Scouts and Thunderwolf Cavalry.
I have gotten to the point that I can throw together a list in about 10min.
This is not Disrespecting you or your well though out “Tried and True List”, in fact my experience with my so called “Fluffy Army” honed over the last decades of playing will give you a real challenge, mostly because I have not taken weeks to build my Army, I have taken decades.

Furthermore, you tend to forget the real problem here: these restrictions don't affect all armies in the same way, they cripple some and leave others unscathed. With Tau, for example, one of the list i use (which i think it's quite competitive) fits this restrictions perfectly. Which means that if versus a regular list i table it in 5 turns, versus a list crippled by these limitation it will take me 4 or even 3 turn to do it. This limitations don't reduce the gap, they increase it.

I have not seen this in my Experience, but I belong to a small Meta so we are not seeing this.

I prefer to just take the dominant units in my codex. All hail Heldrake spam!

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

I never said that variety means unbalance. Your list seems quite competitive (though i would change some things, for example removing speeders in favor of more Longfangs and PAs), and it has a lot of different units. What is not true is the opposite: a list with lots of diversity isn't necessarily balanced. There are a lot of people that think diversity equals balance, and while this may be true for some armies, it's horribly false for others.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

I never said that variety means unbalance. Your list seems quite competitive (though i would change some things, for example removing speeders in favor of more Longfangs and PAs), and it has a lot of different units. What is not true is the opposite: a list with lots of diversity isn't necessarily balanced. There are a lot of people that think diversity equals balance, and while this may be true for some armies, it's horribly false for others.

Yes, but if both armies are doing it there is a Symbiotic Balance that starts to happen. Yes some armies my struggle with this to start with, but after a while they start figuring it out and in my opinion become better in the long run.

I also think you are thinking from the Competitive/Tournament point of view. We don’t play Competitive/Tournament most of the time. We may occasionally have a private group contest to see who wins something like Free Pizza for the next couple of months or we will put up Mini’s as the Grand prize, but that’s about it.

I do this sometimes for fun. I like to see cool units on the table top

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

I never said that variety means unbalance. Your list seems quite competitive (though i would change some things, for example removing speeders in favor of more Longfangs and PAs), and it has a lot of different units. What is not true is the opposite: a list with lots of diversity isn't necessarily balanced. There are a lot of people that think diversity equals balance, and while this may be true for some armies, it's horribly false for others.

Actually, from what I have seen a list with lots of diversity is often unbalanced and lacks the necessary redundancy to ensure you end up with a good, fun game.

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, from what I have seen a list with lots of diversity is often unbalanced and lacks the necessary redundancy to ensure you end up with a good, fun game.

Once more not necessarily, there is when both armies are using the same FOC we both have the same level “Redundancy”.

 Anpu42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, from what I have seen a list with lots of diversity is often unbalanced and lacks the necessary redundancy to ensure you end up with a good, fun game.

Once more not necessarily, there is when both armies are using the same FOC we both have the same level “Redundancy”.

I don't understand that comment at all. Everyone is using the FOC, all you are doing is suggesting a guideline for spreading out the points into units which may not normally get used. However, if a player takes different units from every slot eg you took blood claws, GH as troops, then had different load outs for each troop squad, closely followed by taking 1 TWC and a unit of swiftclaws for FA, with one unit of LF plus a whirlwind (or whatever is in the hs section) you'd have diversity and an unbalanced list. In this case unbalanced means that you can't get anything done effectively .

I play crons and often see lists with small ineffective units. They are diverse, but easy to kill, which I don't think is your objective.

What’s so hard about believing that this works and we are having fun with it.

 Anpu42 wrote:
What’s so hard about believing that this works and we are having fun with it.

You are having fun with it: no doubt about it.
This works: depends on what works. This is not a competitive or balanced way to make lists. Be thankful that in your group you don't have armies that are untouched by these limitations (like Tau... actually Tyrs are untouched by them, but i don't know how competitive your Tyr friend's list is).
What i want to stress is: don't call it a strategy, call it by its name: a limitation on composition. And don't claim it leads to balanced list, because it doesn't.

Teschio wrote:
What i want to stress is: don't call it a strategy, call it by its name: a limitation on composition. And don't claim it leads to balanced list, because it doesn't.

Great Somatic’s
You have not noticed so I will make it clear to everyone.
I have stopped calling it a Strategy I have started calling it an Etiquette/Style.

As far as it not working, have you tried it yes, if not you can't say it wont work, you can claim it may not work, but until you test a Theory it is only a Theory.
I have tested it more than three tomes and keep getting the same results, so it appears to work.

As I poorly worded my earlier post, I'm going to try again:

1). I like your style/etiquette. It encourages the use of a unit from all the FOC slots. Hence, it should reduce spamming in any one slot because of the points limitations, but it doesn't prevent spamming altogether. This is a good thing because most armies require multiples of a unit to operate effectively on the table.

2) for any FOC slot, you are free to choose whatever unit you like per your style. Again, good when building a competitive list. Also, if the slot is not commonly used in the meta, your style will result in a unit not often seen, which is a good thing.

3) Your etiquette/style does not result in a list which is balanced from a FOC perspective. For example, in the list you have posted you have 4 troops and 3 elites, but only 1 FA and 1 HS. This is good because you should be able to produce a balanced list from the point of view of army capabilities (anti vehicle, anti infantry)

4). The lists produced using your style are not, imho, diverse from the point of view of having many different units. Your list doesn't for example. If you want unit diversity, set a rule you can only have 2 of any type of unit. I think you mean, and I agree, that lists produced should differ from the interweb meta. This is not guaranteed though, because some armies can fit your style rules and still be interweb. That is the point many people are trying to make - that your style doesn't treat all armies equally.

To recap: your style/etiquette is good and kudos to you and your meta for using it. It doesn't though, produce "balanced" or "diverse" lists unless the player tries to.

Here's some additional rules we use occasionally to get away from interweb lists if you are interested. Most of these result in uncompetitive lists, but have many different units than normally seen.

-equal points for each FOC Slot until slot filled
-equal units in each FOC slot
-interweb -x. For this one, take the interweb number of units and subtract 1. So for crons 3 Anni Barges is interweb, so only 2 are allowed.
- no interweb

I'm going to a 1000pt tournament in August that enforces a "no doubles except of troops and dedicated transports" rule.

You jelly?

To be honest I wish it was "no triples" but I'll take what I can get.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm going to a 1000pt tournament in August that enforces a "no doubles except of troops and dedicated transports" rule.

You jelly?

To be honest I wish it was "no triples" but I'll take what I can get.

Awesome. So you can't double but you can triple? That's sneaky. Do you have too much invested in a single type of unit, or too little....?

Course for Crons, You'd just triple out AB and Wraiths.

TBH I don't really see the point to this.

One scoring per 500 points is already handled by having a game involving objectives, with people who take fewer scoring units often at a major disadvantage. I suppose it might be good advice for a new player who might be tempted to bring more guns and forget they're playing an objective game, but I don't think it's doing anything to improve list diversity or balance. 3x vets in Vendettas and a Sabre platoon is still powerful and spammy.

One of each FOC slot also isn't really doing anything. Unless you're playing a really small game taking one thing of each type is really easy and you're probably doing it anyway without even trying. So it's a limit that sometimes hurts someone who doesn't have very good options (even if you say it isn't absolutely mandatory there's still pressure to conform to the unwritten rules of the group), but doesn't really put any constraints on a WAAC player. For example, I can take Vendetta/Marbo/Griffon, which is one auto-take unit and two 65/75 point units that are still pretty good, and I'll be playing pretty much exactly the same list as if I just went straight for perfect optimization.

So, if you really want to encourage list diversity you need to impose some stricter limits. No duplicate units (other than troops), no two HQ/elite/fast/heavy choices until you've taken one of each (and two of each to get a third), no using the same non-troops unit in two consecutive games, etc.

Lol nah, its no doubles and no triples. What I meant is that I see no problem really in two of a unit, its three thats spammy.

It's also only 2 elite/heavy/fast slots and maximum 4 troops.

I've not read the wall of text that proceeds me, but i'll post some of the things i try to do when writing a list for friendly/social games.

I play Ulthwe Eldar. The fluff is for loads of guardians and psykers.

This means I always play a farseer, and field a warlock with every guardian squad. This also means that I cannot take more aspect warrior squads than guardian squads.

I too, follow a mandate for 1 troops/500 points. It's good sense too, and I do the same for competition lists.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm going to a 1000pt tournament in August that enforces a "no doubles except of troops and dedicated transports" rule.

You jelly?

To be honest I wish it was "no triples" but I'll take what I can get.

Go with Eldars, Wave Serpents are probably the best unit in the codex and they are not limited being dedicated transports

Belly wrote:
I too, follow a mandate for 1 troops/500 points. It's good sense too, and I do the same for competition lists.

Not always. Some armies need a lot of troops for objectives, others do not. I play at 1750 (tournaments around here are almost always 1750), and armies like Necron or Tau often have 3 or even 2 troops (i use 3 troops in my Farsight Enclave list, only because i have to, using allies. I would gladly use 2). Not all armies are the same, some don't need an abundace of scoring units.

I like the idea of this, remove the cheese with friends.