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.

When browsing tactics or lists, what makes you just skip over a thread?

I personally immediately get bored whenever I see 5+ Serpents or 2 Psyfleman Dreads.

What kinds of list do you just pass over because they bore or annoy you to even see listed?

And yes, personal preferences count too.

As an eldar player, many serpents with minimum contents, especially the posts that say "I had this idea...."

Eldar codex is awesome. Very very powerful. The wave serpent overshadows it so much.

I don't mind a list. I've met people at gaming stores that I've rolled my eyes at, though. Not everyone plays with the same mind set.

I'll skip over any army list thread that doesn't have the points and army in the title.

Other than, I'll read any of them from an army that interests me.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll skip over any army list thread that doesn't have the points and army in the title.

Other than, I'll read any of them from an army that interests me.

Fair point...I can't read Guard lists...maybe its the Tyranid in me but I can't tell the difference between units.

People who think that they need to crush players in casual games to "have fun" makes me roll eyes but beyond that, if you're not playing to test a tourney list or playing in a tournament and plunk down 3 of anything that's described as "rare" (Wraithknights or Riptides come to mind) sub-2K or outside of Apoc and I'm going to have to physically restrain my eyes from rolling out of my head.

Unreadable formatting.

Blacksails wrote:I'll skip over any army list thread that doesn't have the points and army in the title.

Other than, I'll read any of them from an army that interests me.

I tend to do this as well, titles like 'upcoming list for tourney' or 'a new idea I had' just don't make me click.

Gwyidion wrote:As an eldar player, many serpents with minimum contents, especially the posts that say "I had this idea...."

Eldar codex is awesome. Very very powerful. The wave serpent overshadows it so much.

Honestly I think we should have a Cookiecutter thread for every army using the base builds behind the top 3 lists for each codex, then people can add or take away units that like/dislike. So that we don't have another Wraithknight spam list popping up, titled 'A cool new idea...'

Then make them sticky's just to make sure no one reads them.

ClockworkZion wrote:People who think that they need to crush players in casual games to "have fun" makes me roll eyes but beyond that, if you're not playing to test a tourney list or playing in a tournament and plunk down 3 of anything that's described as "rare" (Wraithknights or Riptides come to mind) sub-2K or outside of Apoc and I'm going to have to physically restrain my eyes from rolling out of my head.

I think 40k should adopt the same FOC system they have in Fantasy, based off percentage of points rather than number of choices per slot.

Lately I've just been browsing army lists and it's like.

Helldrakes
Wraith
Serpents
Riptides
Land Raiders
etc.

Where are those intelligent free thinkers?

 kronk wrote:
I don't mind a list. I've met people at gaming stores that I've rolled my eyes at, though. Not everyone plays with the same mind set.

You posted this less than a minute before me so I missed it, but this 100%.

In person, I care infinitely more about the person behind the army than I do about his riptide centric army or wave serpents. I wish more people online would think more like this.

I still stick to my prior comment about online lists though. Tell us the army and points value! A title like "Nids" isn't very compelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Lately I've just been browsing army lists and it's like.

Helldrakes
Wraith
Serpents
Riptides
Land Raiders
etc.

Where are those intelligent free thinkers?

Those are the intelligent ones. There's a reason people pick units like that; they're very good against a wide variety of armies and targets and well priced.

The free thinking part is purely subjective on your part.

Min/max anything. "Hey let's exploit this one thing in the codex....."

For silly gak like making a whole scout army or trying to follow some kind of theme its ok but if doing just because its the codex powerhouse is lame

i'm already rolling my eyes at the discussions of having 5 x inquisitors in a list. I love my fluff and i cant remember reading a story where 5 inquisitors shared a beer and had a fight against somebody else without bitching amongst themselves.

I may as well just run my DKOK 1500pt siege list with 9 x earthshaker carriages and a command tank LRBT vanquisher!

 Blacksails wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Lately I've just been browsing army lists and it's like.

Helldrakes
Wraith
Serpents
Riptides
Land Raiders
etc.

Where are those intelligent free thinkers?

Those are the intelligent ones. There's a reason people pick units like that; they're very good against a wide variety of armies and targets and well priced.

The free thinking part is purely subjective on your part.

Intelligent was an adjective to free thinkers.

Please don't try to find false meaning in what I say.

 ductvader wrote:
Lately I've just been browsing army lists and it's like.

Helldrakes
Wraith
Serpents
Riptides
Land Raiders
etc.

Where are those intelligent free thinkers?

Also those free thinkers are getting harassed because they haven't added (# of riptides, # of drakes, # of serpents.)

I would probably post more lists, (that i think are good but aren't competitive in the slightest) if i knew it wouldn't turn into, You need more drakes why not take drakes drakes drakes drakes.....

 Guitarquero wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Lately I've just been browsing army lists and it's like.

Helldrakes
Wraith
Serpents
Riptides
Land Raiders
etc.

Where are those intelligent free thinkers?

Also those free thinkers are getting harassed because they haven't added (# of riptides, # of drakes, # of serpents.)

I would probably post more lists, (that i think are good but aren't competitive in the slightest) if i knew it wouldn't turn into, You need more drakes why not take drakes drakes drakes drakes.....

Honestly...that alone has led me to post lists in Tactics and then I say "How should I play this list" and if list changes come about from that...so be it.

 ductvader wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll skip over any army list thread that doesn't have the points and army in the title.

Other than, I'll read any of them from an army that interests me.

Fair point...I can't read Guard lists...maybe its the Tyranid in me but I can't tell the difference between units.

I've noticed many guard players have no idea how to put their army in a readable format

 ductvader wrote:
Intelligent was an adjective to free thinkers.

Please don't try to find false meaning in what I say.

And? What if these intelligent free thinkers are going through their codex, finding the good unit choices all their own and also really digging the models too? Are they somehow less than intelligent free thinkers?

You're attributing a quality to something that is purely subjective on your part. I get that it makes your eyes roll (the point of the thread) but try and refrain from classing people by the lists they run as 'intelligent free thinkers' and whatever other qualifiers you'd like to use for the people who use wave serpents and such.

 tybg wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll skip over any army list thread that doesn't have the points and army in the title.

Other than, I'll read any of them from an army that interests me.

Fair point...I can't read Guard lists...maybe its the Tyranid in me but I can't tell the difference between units.

I've noticed many guard players have no idea how to put their army in a readable format

To be fair to them IG units can get really complex.

Eldercaveman wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:People who think that they need to crush players in casual games to "have fun" makes me roll eyes but beyond that, if you're not playing to test a tourney list or playing in a tournament and plunk down 3 of anything that's described as "rare" (Wraithknights or Riptides come to mind) sub-2K or outside of Apoc and I'm going to have to physically restrain my eyes from rolling out of my head.

I think 40k should adopt the same FOC system they have in Fantasy, based off percentage of points rather than number of choices per slot.

The only issue I see with that is that it wouldn't fix builds like Wave Serpent Spam.

To be fair, I played against them multiple times, read the codex three times and I STILL don't have a clue how platoons work.
When are they one units? when are they several units? if you can choose, do you do it while building or then deploying? whats going on there?

Not that our tau lists can't get their own brand of crazy (especially in farsight) where you can have a team consisting 3 guys, each have 3 different pieces of wargear, and good luck figuring who packs what, and if they are one team or three teams when reading the list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:People who think that they need to crush players in casual games to "have fun" makes me roll eyes but beyond that, if you're not playing to test a tourney list or playing in a tournament and plunk down 3 of anything that's described as "rare" (Wraithknights or Riptides come to mind) sub-2K or outside of Apoc and I'm going to have to physically restrain my eyes from rolling out of my head.

I think 40k should adopt the same FOC system they have in Fantasy, based off percentage of points rather than number of choices per slot.

The only issue I see with that is that it wouldn't fix builds like Wave Serpent Spam.

Could always have a % for transports?

Then again, that could lead to problems for other armies.

 BoomWolf wrote:
To be fair, I played against them multiple times, read the codex three times and I STILL don't have a clue how platoons work.
When are they one units? when are they several units? if you can choose, do you do it while building or then deploying? whats going on there?

They can be either. You choose when you deploy, i think.

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:People who think that they need to crush players in casual games to "have fun" makes me roll eyes but beyond that, if you're not playing to test a tourney list or playing in a tournament and plunk down 3 of anything that's described as "rare" (Wraithknights or Riptides come to mind) sub-2K or outside of Apoc and I'm going to have to physically restrain my eyes from rolling out of my head.

I think 40k should adopt the same FOC system they have in Fantasy, based off percentage of points rather than number of choices per slot.

The only issue I see with that is that it wouldn't fix builds like Wave Serpent Spam.

Could always have a % for transports?

Then again, that could lead to problems for other armies.

I'd say 40k needs a rework, but having seen this over a couple editions and even hearing of this in other games, I think it comes to player mentality. Namely some of them are mental.

More seriously the issue is that certain players will always do what they can do break whatever game they play to get an advantage. They won't cheat persay, but they will likely bend "good sportsmanship" (or GW's "Spirit of the Game") over a table and- well you get the idea. The point is that we can't do anything really about people like that and it often means other people end up in an "arms race" against them list building wise to try and stand a chance against them.

Basically I think they're the poison in the well and I care for them not.

Essentially a platoon consists of a platoon command squad, and 2-5 infantry squads who can either blob up to 50 men in one unit, or be individual squads, or any other combination which is chosen when you deploy.

I roll my eyes when people post lists that are pretty poor, but want to play it competitively. I'm sorry, but those blobs of 20 Rubric marines are not going to survive in a competitive format against wave serpents.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd say 40k needs a rework, but having seen this over a couple editions and even hearing of this in other games, I think it comes to player mentality. Namely some of them are mental.

More seriously the issue is that certain players will always do what they can do break whatever game they play to get an advantage. They won't cheat persay, but they will likely bend "good sportsmanship" (or GW's "Spirit of the Game") over a table and- well you get the idea. The point is that we can't do anything really about people like that and it often means other people end up in an "arms race" against them list building wise to try and stand a chance against them.

Basically I think they're the poison in the well and I care for them not.

Well I agree that 40k needs a rework. A serious one at that.

Obviously players will seek to find the best combinations possible, but I submit that sportmanship and spirit of the game are not solely or even mostly dependent on the list you bring or how hard you play. I will always place my opponent as a person higher on my priorities as a requisite for a good game than I will their army, list, or rules knowledge.

Then, consider that many other wargames now have less problems in the way of sportsmanship as the games are significantly more balanced. This leads to less gaps between so called 'hard' lists and 'soft' lists, meaning anyone can take their favourite models/theme/army and play with anyone else without having to come to an agreement before hand that may be less than ideal for one or more of the players.

So I don't think its the players who are the poison, but rather the game itself that creates these divisions among players.

Vox-Casters, Grenade Launchers, LRBT with sponsons and Vets with shotguns.

Not only are they useless but they'll actually damage your chances at winning if you take them.

We'll have to agree to disagree then Blacksails because from what I've seen some players would abuse Chutes and Ladders if they could find a way.

I generally am unimpressed by gun-line tau. We have a very maneuverable army, if we would just take advantage of it.

When I got to the army list forum I skip over most of the tau armies unless it is labelled with farsight enclaves.

A 1750 to 2000 pt tau list is:

ethereal
riptide
riptide
4x 12 firewarriors
3x 6 pathfinders
broadsides
broadsides
hammerhead

or some variation of the list above. People want criticism on a cope/paste list simply because they dropped 3 pathfinders and took 2 missile drones or vice versa.


I'm also not a fan of CSM lists that use only cultists as their troops. Why not just make a traitor guard list at that point.