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.

 felixander wrote:
I refuse to use any Wraith constructs for my Craftworld despite knowing that Wraithguard jumping out of Wave Serpent is crushing.

HEY! me too SOLIDARITY!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.

Plus its a pain to fething carry it around

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.

That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.

Infantry platoons. Yes, meatshields are good. Yes, Sabre guns are god. But I play elite IG. Veterans, tanks, and enough air support that Imperial Navy should be my primary detachment.

-Loki- wrote:I wouldn't say I don't use good units, but I don't spam them to the extent The Internet tells me I need to.

I take a single Dakka Flyrant. I take a single Tervigon and a single minimum brood of Termagants. I take no Trygons at all.

I take plenty of units The Internet tells me are absolute rubbish - Hormagaunts, Warriors, Carnifexes, Venomthropes.

The Internet lies. I still do fine.

True that, my friend!

I used to run with the 4th ed eldar Codex all the units the internet said not to, and my win/loss ration is unbelievable. People used to only challenge my eldar when they hadn't been let out of what was known as 'the red box of stupid doom' in so long people doubted my army's power, or when a new codex came out that was claimed to be 'overpowered'. The only army I hated fighting was blood angels... due to bad luck one game (And I mean HORRIBLE luck) and TH/SS termis with 4+ FnP (5th ed in both cases).

But as for units I don't take... Warwalkers. I love the models, the few times I do run them they do amazingly or die spectacularly, but I just can't take em. Why? The models are so flimsy that after a night in my case, they fall apart etc, the weapon mounts fall off with as much as a stern stare at them etc.

Von Chogg

I refuse to use eldar guardians. They can pilot my vehicles. That is all.
I run an aspect army - I've always liked the aspect warriors.

I don't take Vendettas. They're kind of boring.

I don't use four-legged units in my SW army. Just hate the concept.

Psykers. Goddamn things made only one wound on *enemy* in my whole warhammer playing history - when squad of imperial psykers shot Jain Zar with their pistols. All other ways in years their either blowing themselves or blowing my own squads (in case of templates).
May be I should really consider playing Black Templars.

I shelved my carnifexes for non-apoc games after getting stonecrushers. It was a sad day.

Tervigons I just won't use them at all, I don't think the idea of mummy being in the front lines fits with nids way of war.(they should of kept with out number).

Any thing nurgle (I play CSM and daemons) I just don't like the models or concept, there good rules wise but not for me.

 Gandohar wrote:
I won't take ally units. For some reason it just feels really cheap for me to pick and choose really powerful units from other armies to bolster my force. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Plus I play Chaos so it never makes sense from a fluff perspective.

Uhh Chaos Daemons don't seem like a fluffy ally to you? Imperial Guard Regiment who has turned to Chaos as your forces arrive to slaughter a planet doesn't seem reasonable to you? Your Chaos Lord paying off a clan of Bloodaxe Orks doesn't seem right?
I think Chaos has some GREAT Allies options without it being cheap. I know this thread isn't supposed to be just what you don't use, but I'm a big fan of the allies system under correct usage and I think Chaos is one army that has a good bit of leeway with it! Either way, good on you for doing something you believe to be more fluffy than powerful.

I'm interested by all the responses, there seem to be many reasons including:

- Bad experiences with certain units
- General dislike of the unit
- Lack of models
- Transport problems
- More effective choices
- Army list theme and background reasons
- Unit is too effective

For myself the last two seem to be the main reasons. My Chaos force is Black legion, so I either don't take any marked units, or I make sure i've ght the same number of each mark (e.g. 1 each of Knorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slannesh marked units) in my army. I also don't have a Heldrake, simply because almost everyone says you need one!

For my White Scars things are a lot more restrictive - everything must be a fast unit (with the exception of scouts and some vehicles which fir the theme).

My dislike of taking 'uber' units is very simple - I want to feel that I won because the better tactician, not because I had the better codex... anyone else feel this way?

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
P.S: When are we getting a 6th bat-rep Hedgehog? I really want to read another White Scar's adventure

i've been playing a few doubles games recently which don't work well as battle reports, in addition last weekend my opponents didn't wanttme tot ake pics as their forces weren't looking very pretty

Hopefully I can organise another 1v1 game soon and continue my reports

Sisters and a unit of Guard is perfectly fluffy allies-wise. Also makes for great synergy in-game.

 Hedgehog wrote:


My dislike of taking 'uber' units is very simple - I want to feel that I won because the better tactician, not because I had the better codex... anyone else feel this way?

It depends. In my rather competitive meta, I steer clear of übers. My opponents bring them, but I find it more fun to not. In tournaments I restrict myself less, but still avoid some things I consider to be unsporting. For example, I'll never take vendettas and sabres. If I have my AA covered, I'm happy. I won't bring either to a "friendly" game though.

 -Loki- wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.

That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.

Eh, sentinels look cool, if a bit dorky, and the chimera reminds me of a BTR.

The Leman Russ is just so ridiculous though that I have to field them. The fact that it works in spite of its horrible design features just makes me love it that much more.

There are some units that fluff wise, I would love to field, but due to my playstyle, I would merely hiss and turn away from it.

For example, it isn't quite a tyranid army without Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, but their steep cost for a single model is difficult to justify. (280 for a dakka flyrant? That's a pretty big target on its back) Rippers look fun to use, but what's the point of a troop that can't score? Shame, they'd go nicely with my malanthrope.


Stone crusher I could justify, though

I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice to field when compared with other options (comparison to be taken in full, point costs and FOC and all that).
My Death Korps will not field rough riders until they become the most efficient unit to field as compared to other options available to me. This means it is exceedingly unlikely that I will field rough riders in the foreseeable future.

I am a hardcore roleplayer. And my general on the tabletop uses the most efficient means available to achieve victory. That means I use the most efficient means available to reach victory as well.
Unless you are an ork, or possibly playing one of the more delusional Necron lords, your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices - because your warlord, your avatar on the field of battle, would surely choose the path that is perceived by you to be the most likely to victory?

Having some sort of twisted "pride" in avoiding conventionally powerful units is foolish at best and psychotic at worst. But if you insist that your warlord is too poor at his own job to understand the most efficient options, then that's naturally your choice.

mynamelegend wrote:
I am a hardcore roleplayer.

The tabletop game is nothing but an abstract representation of the lore, ergo, you can easily roleplay without having to powergame.

mynamelegend wrote:
I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice to field when compared with other options (comparison to be taken in full, point costs and FOC and all that).
My Death Korps will not field rough riders until they become the most efficient unit to field as compared to other options available to me. This means it is exceedingly unlikely that I will field rough riders in the foreseeable future.

I am a hardcore roleplayer. And my general on the tabletop uses the most efficient means available to achieve victory. That means I use the most efficient means available to reach victory as well.
Unless you are an ork, or possibly playing one of the more delusional Necron lords, your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices - because your warlord, your avatar on the field of battle, would surely choose the path that is perceived by you to be the most likely to victory?

Having some sort of twisted "pride" in avoiding conventionally powerful units is foolish at best and psychotic at worst. But if you insist that your warlord is too poor at his own job to understand the most efficient options, then that's naturally your choice.

Because everyone knows that every general has everything he needs at his beck and call for every scenario AMIRIGHT?!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.

That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.

Eh, sentinels look cool, if a bit dorky, and the chimera reminds me of a BTR.

The Leman Russ is just so ridiculous though that I have to field them. The fact that it works in spite of its horrible design features just makes me love it that much more.

Hey, gotta give Carron something to rant about.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because everyone knows that every general has everything he needs at his beck and call for every scenario AMIRIGHT?!

Actually, if you and your opponent agree to playing scenarios, for instance, without Heavy Support options? That makes for very interesting alternative game rules to the normal 40k ones. But as long as that has not been agreed, the limits of FoC, codex, ally matrix and points are the only standard limits on your general's resources available for the particular battle in which you partake.

You'd still field the most efficient options within the available rules if you play such an alternate game, and of course you still have to be within your available budget - if you are physically unable to procure Vendettas for monetary reasons for instance, you're of course entirely forgiven for choosing to not field what you do not have.
But it is safe to assume that if you have the Vendetta model, your general has access to the selfsame unit.

Choosing to see playing to win and roleplaying as mutually exclusive traits is an arbitrary distinction - if you refuse to find a simple justification for an optimal choice, then it is nobody's fault but your own when you lose, and crying "WAAC powergamer!" at someone who is no less a roleplayer than you, but has chosen to play a superior general, is not going to make you look any better.

Heldrakes-(Only because I can't afford to buy one and ruin it with my lack of proper painting skills and no airbrush)

Nurgle Bikers- Or really anyone on a bike, I hate bikes for some irrational reason, likewise I refuse to mount my Khorne lords on Juggars (although I'm toying with the idea of modeling a Cyber T-Rex and running it as a Juggarnaut)

Noise Marines- Just hate the model, thinking of converting some up though

My point is that saying "I'm role playing a good general so I never take bad units." is ludicrous - that sentence has no basis in reality.

I guess I'm just not understanding your point overall.

i refuse to take Wraiths. I hate the models.

I point blank refuse to update my guard army, much to the chargrin of the staffers at my local GW.

My force is a mechanised infantry company. Men, and the transports to get them to where the imperium wants them to be. Yeah, I have two Russ (battlecannons and bolter's make me happy). They have names, (the newer one is "Samburgs revenge" and the older one is "Old reliable") and fill the role, along with the hydra's, of defending my column of Not-so-armoured transports.

You know what doesn't fit the theme? Aegis defence lines and aircraft. No....just no. My company commander wouldn't have the imperial navy at his beck and call so neither do I.

I built it as a mechanised infantry force before I knew that it was the meta bomb in 5th. I like to think this more or less proves that I went to the trouble of buying, building and painting 6 veteran teams in 6 chimera (and a company HQ in the same) because I liked the idea of a mechanised infantry company with some armoured support, not because I saw a cool list on the internet.

rigeld2 wrote:
My point is that saying "I'm role playing a good general so I never take bad units." is ludicrous - that sentence has no basis in reality.

I guess I'm just not understanding your point overall.

Does it have any more basis in reality than saying "I refuse to take vendettas because I roleplay a ground army", or "I refuse to take Predator tanks because they look boring and boxy"?
Are you picturing the Space Marine Captain standing there, watching the enemy tanks roll up, and when asked why he refused to send out his own tankhunter predators, he responds with "Well, they're so boring and boxy, you know?". Maybe you're playing a captain who refuses to be gauche, I don't know, but it seems unlikely.
Still, it's a viable choice too.

Refusing to take certain options based on roleplaying/fluff, hating the models, or even if you want to make some sort of stand against fliers, is an accepted limitation.
As long as you accept that if someone doesn't abide by the same, and your restrictions result in a decline of your game capacity, that does not make him a "powergamer", "WAAC", or any of those other empty terms losers tend to throw at winners.

My point, is that arbitrarily limiting yourself to NOT taking certain units is fine, as long as you don't whine at people who don't follow suit.
Again an exception is made for when this arbitrary limit is mutually agreed upon ahead of time, IE: "We'll play a game without any Heavy Support choices" - bringing Leman Russ tanks in such a game would be grounds for complaint.
Losing to someone who brought them when you yourself refused to because they're so boxy and boring does not make you a better gamer or roleplayer, it simply means he is a better general.

My point, kept shorter: Limit yourself however you want and for any reasons you want, but just because I don't doesn't mean you have the right to whine about it when I win.
A few too many people who say things like "well my fluff doesn't allow me to field any meltaguns in my army" or "Oh, I just hate the look of tanks and drop pods, and I'm my own chapter that hates psykers, so I play footslog vanilla marines with a generic captain", will later claim that their loss is because they face "WAAC" players.
Well, if I roleplay, and you roleplay, we both roleplay. If I also choose to play the competitive tabletop wargame with the stated goal of victory within the game's parameters, and you do not, then you can't complain if I achieve that victory, and you do not.

Looking down on serious roleplayers just because they roleplay different than you isn't exactly laudable behavior, mynamelegend.

I absolutely agree.

I suppose I should have kept my point more simple - "You do what you want, on the single condition that you don't look down upon me and label me 'WAAC powergamer' if I don't play in the same way you do".

Truly and honestly, people who choose to roleplay in a different manner have my thumbs-up. As long as they don't start looking down upon me because I roleplay in a different way.

Sadly, way too many people who do the - completely and entirely fine - choice of limiting their choices based on fluff or model preferences, suddenly start complaining when others don't follow suit. It's a bit of a problem on this forum, and it never ceases to annoy me.
If I come across as a jerk when stating it, then my communications skills clearly need improvement.

I never take special characters. It just kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Oh, Ghazghkull Thraka decided to show up for his 50th fight this week? How neat.

I never take allies, flyers or fortifications either, because I'm growing old and crotchety and therefore they are nothing but shameless money grabs by GW.