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.

Just finished browsing the lists for Caledonian Open, the next UK GT in April. 1850 pts Forgeworld is allowed, no Escalation/Stronghold Assault.

I've never seen such a yawnfest in my life. There's no innovation, just an endless repetition of O'Vesa Stars, Tau/Tau builds, White Scars Biker Spam, and of course Eldar with the obligatory 2 WKs, 2+WS and sometimes Warlocks.

The occasional Fortuneseer+beastpack is a bright spot but otherwise it's a predictable repetition of netlists.

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

I'll post up some of the more interesting lists for your delectation.

Show us some bike lists if you will cheers

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Innovation has been dead since the internet became popular. 40k isn't really a very deep or complex game, so new releases can be analyzed pretty quickly and the new winning lists are obvious. And once the first people figure it out and post about it everyone else follows, because why innovate just for the sake of innovating when your list is almost guaranteed to be weaker than the standard lists? GW's appalling lack of balance just makes the situation worse by ensuring that "find GW's balance mistakes and spam them" is the best strategy and any "innovative" list won't have access to that power.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the reason is because the codices have pretty awful internal balance for unit selection, and pretty crummy external balance limiting the amount of codices you'll see to start with.

So I guess someone could run an IG rough rider/ogryn list, but I can assure you it would fail against a remotely tooled tourney list.

Then again, I don't know what you were expecting. A tournament is by its nature going to bring out the best lists, and those are the best, most reliable lists you can field.

*Edit* Ninja'd by Peregrine.

Its simple to avoid people with these lists. In our area people who play like that have long been rooted out or converted. Makes the hobby so much more interesting and enjoyable. Although fantasy players in our area are still stuck in this tournament mind set and as a result the same few people sit there arguing the rules and combos all night, a bit of a bore really.

I personally think its a big problem but thankfully its not an issue my friends and i come accross any more. But its disheartening to see.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Innovation has been dead since the internet became popular. 40k isn't really a very deep or complex game, so new releases can be analyzed pretty quickly and the new winning lists are obvious. And once the first people figure it out and post about it everyone else follows, because why innovate just for the sake of innovating when your list is almost guaranteed to be weaker than the standard lists? GW's appalling lack of balance just makes the situation worse by ensuring that "find GW's balance mistakes and spam them" is the best strategy and any "innovative" list won't have access to that power.

Innovation isn't dead in 40k, but there is certainly a strong perception that it is. Peregrine succinctly encapsulates the prevailing wisdom on the topic, and it should be noted that the majority of players seem to agree with him.

I vehemently disagree, but I'm in the minority. I think that innovation and experience with an army are far more powerful factors than people are willing to give credit to. For what it's worth, the tournaments I attend usually see a variety of lists, and while there are players who just use netlists, most of our players like to try and find their own groove.

While there are certainly very obvious combinations that are indeed very potent, they are hardly the best or only combinations. Given the wide variety of models, units, and options in most codexes, coupled with the dizzying array of combinations that are opened up with fortifications, allies, and multiple force org charts, I think the statement I disagree most with is the one about 40k not really being a very deep or complex game. It has the capacity to be a very deep and complex game, provided you're willing to put the effort into it.

Why do so many people use netlists? Same reason competitive bikers blood dope and baseball players take steroids. It's easier than doing the work yourself.

You're bound to see some Tyranids start to show up now that they have their amazing new 'Dex. Some things went down in price, so they're gggrrrrreat.

While there are certainly very obvious combinations that are indeed very potent, they are hardly the best or only combinations. Given the wide variety of models, units, and options in most codexes, coupled with the dizzying array of combinations that are opened up with fortifications, allies, and multiple force org charts, I think the statement I disagree most with is the one about 40k not really being a very deep or complex game. It has the capacity to be a very deep and complex game, provided you're willing to put the effort into it.

Your confusing quantity with quality there mate.

Isn't the problem the lack of balance or care to balance from GW? Nobody wants to spend a small fortune on figures and then lose every game they play so you see the rise of the "net list" and cookie cutter armies designed to WAAC. There hasn't been innovation in a long time. Even when I last played 40k in 3rd edition about 12 years ago there were net lists and cookie cutter armies (IW chaos with basilisks and vindicators, Mauleed Marines with 6 man las/plas, Starcannon spam etc.)

Well, if you go to such an event, you should be prepared to see the usual competitive net lists. Other lists have largely been ruled out by the WAAC factor. Accept this or stay home.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Just finished browsing the lists for Caledonian Open, the next UK GT in April. 1850 pts Forgeworld is allowed, no Escalation/Stronghold Assault.

I've never seen such a yawnfest in my life. There's no innovation, just an endless repetition of O'Vesa Stars, Tau/Tau builds, White Scars Biker Spam, and of course Eldar with the obligatory 2 WKs, 2+WS and sometimes Warlocks.

The occasional Fortuneseer+beastpack is a bright spot but otherwise it's a predictable repetition of netlists.

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

I'll post up some of the more interesting lists for your delectation.

Such a high end tourney event is hardly a good indicator of the amount of innovation in 40k. None of those lists appear in my regular group because we just refuse to play with that WAAC mentality until everyone is running the same list every game over and over. Tournies draw those people because joining a big tourney involves a lot of "want to win" so of course the usual suspects will there in droves. Keeping netlists way is as simple as setting up your own gaming group with likeminded players. Works for me and has worked for me for pretty much the length of time I've been playing 40k. This is what you must do when you play a game that is as horribly balanced as 40k is. You make gentelman's agreements not to be jerks and play irritating spam lists. Now silly/funny spam lists like the ogryn/rough riders list mentioned earlier in he thread is acceptable and amusing to all.

Skriker

40k also has only one real win condition (win on scenerio, which is almost always objectives), so all armies are built around that.

Not to turn into the cliched guy talking about how awesome Warmachine is, but having the possbility of a caster kill makes games more touchy, as nobody is out until its over.

Armies are built to handle a pretty small range of mission types, and can be pretty quickly optimized.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Just finished browsing the lists for Caledonian Open, the next UK GT in April. 1850 pts Forgeworld is allowed, no Escalation/Stronghold Assault.

I've never seen such a yawnfest in my life. There's no innovation, just an endless repetition of O'Vesa Stars, Tau/Tau builds, White Scars Biker Spam, and of course Eldar with the obligatory 2 WKs, 2+WS and sometimes Warlocks.

The occasional Fortuneseer+beastpack is a bright spot but otherwise it's a predictable repetition of netlists.

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

I'll post up some of the more interesting lists for your delectation.

That's better than it was in 5h edition, for a while. GK were 7 out of the top ten armies at a few tournies, with a sprinkling of SW and IG.

No Screamerstars though?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're bound to see some Tyranids start to show up now that they have their amazing new 'Dex. Some things went down in price, so they're gggrrrrreat.

Man you got to say somewhere your exaggerating, otherwise some people might actually believe you!

It's to easy to blame the internet for GW's balance failures. A lot of people, especially those attending tournaments, can identify good units and options in their army without the help of the internet. It might take a few games of playtesting and maybe some more thought than pulling up a thread on dakkadakka, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Once the two good players in a store have nuked their way to victory with riptide spam, all others will follow, internet or not.

I know a player who has played tau for years now, he is a great general but doesn't care about building competitive lists. He feels bad about fielding the two riptides we got him for his birthday. He built them, painted them and fielded them in a campaign they were playing. He tabled his enemies in every single one of the six missions they played. Any idiot could figure out that riptides are winning games all by themselves, without resorting to netlists.

It's GW's place to fix that, not the player's. And they just don't care. Not as long as it's not impacting their sales, anyways.

Peregrine wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Innovation has been dead since the internet became popular. 40k isn't really a very deep or complex game, so new releases can be analyzed pretty quickly and the new winning lists are obvious. And once the first people figure it out and post about it everyone else follows, because why innovate just for the sake of innovating when your list is almost guaranteed to be weaker than the standard lists? GW's appalling lack of balance just makes the situation worse by ensuring that "find GW's balance mistakes and spam them" is the best strategy and any "innovative" list won't have access to that power.

I mostly agree except 40k is pretty complex, but the complexity comes artificially from the sheer number of special rules/conditions/unique weapons from the 12+codex+supps.

This isn't what I mean though- top netlists have become standard lists now, unfortunately people aren't innovating to counter them. The idea is to innovate something better, like how Justin Cook innovated the O'vesa-star...

Blacksails wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the reason is because the codices have pretty awful internal balance for unit selection, and pretty crummy external balance limiting the amount of codices you'll see to start with.

So I guess someone could run an IG rough rider/ogryn list, but I can assure you it would fail against a remotely tooled tourney list.

Then again, I don't know what you were expecting. A tournament is by its nature going to bring out the best lists, and those are the best, most reliable lists you can field.

*Edit* Ninja'd by Peregrine.

But these aren't the best lists, they're just re-hashes of lists from past tournaments. You can bring something better, almost all the time

Swastakowey wrote:Its simple to avoid people with these lists. In our area people who play like that have long been rooted out or converted. Makes the hobby so much more interesting and enjoyable. Although fantasy players in our area are still stuck in this tournament mind set and as a result the same few people sit there arguing the rules and combos all night, a bit of a bore really.

I personally think its a big problem but thankfully its not an issue my friends and i come accross any more. But its disheartening to see.

Actually, I find playing bad lists extremely dull. I far enjoy playing competitive and top-tier builds to 3rd ed vehicle marine spam. And I hobby just as hard as any painter or modeller. What's disheartening is the lack of imagination in evolving the meta.

Jimsolo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

Innovation has been dead since the internet became popular. 40k isn't really a very deep or complex game, so new releases can be analyzed pretty quickly and the new winning lists are obvious. And once the first people figure it out and post about it everyone else follows, because why innovate just for the sake of innovating when your list is almost guaranteed to be weaker than the standard lists? GW's appalling lack of balance just makes the situation worse by ensuring that "find GW's balance mistakes and spam them" is the best strategy and any "innovative" list won't have access to that power.

Innovation isn't dead in 40k, but there is certainly a strong perception that it is. Peregrine succinctly encapsulates the prevailing wisdom on the topic, and it should be noted that the majority of players seem to agree with him.

I vehemently disagree, but I'm in the minority. I think that innovation and experience with an army are far more powerful factors than people are willing to give credit to. For what it's worth, the tournaments I attend usually see a variety of lists, and while there are players who just use netlists, most of our players like to try and find their own groove.

While there are certainly very obvious combinations that are indeed very potent, they are hardly the best or only combinations. Given the wide variety of models, units, and options in most codexes, coupled with the dizzying array of combinations that are opened up with fortifications, allies, and multiple force org charts, I think the statement I disagree most with is the one about 40k not really being a very deep or complex game. It has the capacity to be a very deep and complex game, provided you're willing to put the effort into it.

Why do so many people use netlists? Same reason competitive bikers blood dope and baseball players take steroids. It's easier than doing the work yourself.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! It's the lack of imagination I'm bemoaning. Although your analogy isn't quite correct, steroid doping in wargaming would be bringing loaded dice. (although in the cycling analogy everyone dopes, so if you don't dope you handicap yourself...)

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're bound to see some Tyranids start to show up now that they have their amazing new 'Dex. Some things went down in price, so they're gggrrrrreat.

I fully expect Tyranids to dominate the tournament and take most of the top table positions. This was sarcasm, if you didn't quite get it.

Dakkamite wrote:

While there are certainly very obvious combinations that are indeed very potent, they are hardly the best or only combinations. Given the wide variety of models, units, and options in most codexes, coupled with the dizzying array of combinations that are opened up with fortifications, allies, and multiple force org charts, I think the statement I disagree most with is the one about 40k not really being a very deep or complex game. It has the capacity to be a very deep and complex game, provided you're willing to put the effort into it.

Your confusing quantity with quality there mate.

Quantity has a quality all of its own

WayneTheGame wrote:Isn't the problem the lack of balance or care to balance from GW? Nobody wants to spend a small fortune on figures and then lose every game they play so you see the rise of the "net list" and cookie cutter armies designed to WAAC. There hasn't been innovation in a long time. Even when I last played 40k in 3rd edition about 12 years ago there were net lists and cookie cutter armies (IW chaos with basilisks and vindicators, Mauleed Marines with 6 man las/plas, Starcannon spam etc.)

There is always innovation; the leaders who create the meta and the followers who spam it. WAAC isn't the same as bringing a competitive list tailored to the meta. There is nothing wrong with bringing a strong list, just a boring one that some body else came up with.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, if you go to such an event, you should be prepared to see the usual competitive net lists. Other lists have largely been ruled out by the WAAC factor. Accept this or stay home.

Again, competitive does not equal WAAC. I'm bemoaning the lack of imagination in creating new counter-meta lists. I enjoy playing competitive lists and there for will not be staying at home.

Skriker wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Just finished browsing the lists for Caledonian Open, the next UK GT in April. 1850 pts Forgeworld is allowed, no Escalation/Stronghold Assault.

I've never seen such a yawnfest in my life. There's no innovation, just an endless repetition of O'Vesa Stars, Tau/Tau builds, White Scars Biker Spam, and of course Eldar with the obligatory 2 WKs, 2+WS and sometimes Warlocks.

The occasional Fortuneseer+beastpack is a bright spot but otherwise it's a predictable repetition of netlists.

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

I'll post up some of the more interesting lists for your delectation.

Such a high end tourney event is hardly a good indicator of the amount of innovation in 40k. None of those lists appear in my regular group because we just refuse to play with that WAAC mentality until everyone is running the same list every game over and over. Tournies draw those people because joining a big tourney involves a lot of "want to win" so of course the usual suspects will there in droves. Keeping netlists way is as simple as setting up your own gaming group with likeminded players. Works for me and has worked for me for pretty much the length of time I've been playing 40k. This is what you must do when you play a game that is as horribly balanced as 40k is. You make gentelman's agreements not to be jerks and play irritating spam lists. Now silly/funny spam lists like the ogryn/rough riders list mentioned earlier in he thread is acceptable and amusing to all.

Skriker

Same response I've made, seems a lot of people misunderstand WAAC/Competitive.

Polonius wrote:40k also has only one real win condition (win on scenerio, which is almost always objectives), so all armies are built around that.

Not to turn into the cliched guy talking about how awesome Warmachine is, but having the possbility of a caster kill makes games more touchy, as nobody is out until its over.

Armies are built to handle a pretty small range of mission types, and can be pretty quickly optimized.

Thanks for sneaking in the Warmachine reference, it's been really helpful.

Sasori wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Just finished browsing the lists for Caledonian Open, the next UK GT in April. 1850 pts Forgeworld is allowed, no Escalation/Stronghold Assault.

I've never seen such a yawnfest in my life. There's no innovation, just an endless repetition of O'Vesa Stars, Tau/Tau builds, White Scars Biker Spam, and of course Eldar with the obligatory 2 WKs, 2+WS and sometimes Warlocks.

The occasional Fortuneseer+beastpack is a bright spot but otherwise it's a predictable repetition of netlists.

Is innovation truly dead in 40k?

I'll post up some of the more interesting lists for your delectation.

That's better than it was in 5h edition, for a while. GK were 7 out of the top ten armies at a few tournies, with a sprinkling of SW and IG.

No Screamerstars though?

Screamerstar is vastly overrated by the internet, who think WOW 2++ REROLLABLE = I WIN. Screamers put out a pathetic amount of damage compared to O'vesastar and other shooty builds. They get crushed hard by MSU and Eldar. They're better in 1500 pts and below, but in 1850 over 6 games they can't really compete with troops choices as gakky as they have.

ninjafiredragon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're bound to see some Tyranids start to show up now that they have their amazing new 'Dex. Some things went down in price, so they're gggrrrrreat.

Man you got to say somewhere your exaggerating, otherwise some people might actually believe you!

Tyranid release broke the meta so hard I rushed out to buy Exocrines. This is still sarcasm, by the way.

Jidmah wrote:It's to easy to blame the internet for GW's balance failures. A lot of people, especially those attending tournaments, can identify good units and options in their army without the help of the internet. It might take a few games of playtesting and maybe some more thought than pulling up a thread on dakkadakka, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Once the two good players in a store have nuked their way to victory with riptide spam, all others will follow, internet or not.

I know a player who has played tau for years now, he is a great general but doesn't care about building competitive lists. He feels bad about fielding the two riptides we got him for his birthday. He built them, painted them and fielded them in a campaign they were playing. He tabled his enemies in every single one of the six missions they played. Any idiot could figure out that riptides are winning games all by themselves, without resorting to netlists.

It's GW's place to fix that, not the player's. And they just don't care. Not as long as it's not impacting their sales, anyways.

Why should anyone feel bad about winning? Riptides aren't winning lists by themselves unless paired with a Tau c&c commander. Clearly imbalanced rulesets aren't hurting their bottom line, considering the rush to buy Riptides; I doubt 90% of the players at the tournament had/played tau pre-6th. I'll definitely do the rounds and ask people at the tourney. GW must have made a killing. Tyranids might change that though, and make them realise that releasing a gakky codex isn't going to shift stock.

Well I probably should post the lists so you can see for yourself. Have a look and pick out any bright spots you might find.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pq5r6a62j0t092a/cally%20list%20doc%2014%20v1.pdf

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I mostly agree except 40k is pretty complex, but the complexity comes artificially from the sheer number of special rules/conditions/unique weapons from the 12+codex+supps.

Well, I should clarify that I'm talking about complexity of decisions. 40k has complex rules, but most of that is because the rules are a bloated mess. In terms of actual decisions to make, especially decisions that aren't trivial ones like "take Vendettas instead of rough riders", there isn't all that much. Once you've identified GW's balance mistakes and brought them you need to know how to decide target priority, and you need to be aware of the need to have scoring units on objectives. Beyond that it's mostly a case of just seeing whose list choices were better, and whose dice luck is better.

This isn't what I mean though- top netlists have become standard lists now, unfortunately people aren't innovating to counter them. The idea is to innovate something better, like how Justin Cook innovated the O'vesa-star...

But that wasn't really innovation. As soon as the Farsight supplement was released everyone immediately noticed that having an IC Riptide meant you could put two Riptides together, and it's pretty obvious that you put the buff commander in your biggest offensive threat. Maybe this Justin Cook guy was the first to win a major tournament with it (was he? I have no idea), but there was nothing at all creative about it. It's entirely dependent on GW deciding to publish another balance mistake that's worth building a list around.

List I like:

HQ1 : Eldrad
HQ2 : Farseer Jet Bike Shard of Anaris
4 units : 3x Windrider Jetbikes

FA1: 6x Swooping Hawks
HS1: Wraithknight
HS2: Wraithknight
HS3: Wraithknight

HQ1 : Baron Sathony
Troop 1 : 5x Kaballite Warriors
FA1: Beast pack: 5x Beastmasters 2x Razorwing Flocks 19x Khymarae

i seeing some Wolves, some crons, some nids, whats the problem?

Let escalation and at least stronghold (minus the two superheavy forts if you dont want escalation) and you will shake up the meta.

Orks in a tourney, ballsy: Not sure you can take mega-armoured nobz as troops? Also, the trukks should really be battlewagons.

HQ1 :Warboss Mega Armour Cybork body Bosspole Attack Squig
HQ2 : Warboss Mega Armour Cybork body Bosspole Attack Squig
Elite1 : 5x Meganobz 5 combi-shoota skorcha
Elite2 : 5x Meganobz 5 combi-shoota skorcha + Transport4
Elite 3 : 5x Meganobz 5 combi-shoota skorcha + Transport5
Troop 1 : 5x Meganobz, 5 combi-shoota skorcha + Transport1
Troop 2 : 5x Meganobz 5 combi-shoota skorcha + Transport2
Troop 3 : Runtherd 10x Gretchin
Troop 4 : Runtherd 10x Gretchin
Transport1 : Battlewagon Deff Rolla Red Paint Job Grot Riggers3x Big Shoota
Transport2 : Battlewagon Deff Rolla Red Paint Job, Grot Riggers 2x Big Shoota
Transport3 : Trukk with Reinforced Ram
Transport4 : Trukk with Reinforced Ram
Transport5 : Trukk with Reinforced Ram


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Love this list, it's so ballsy

Clan Raukaan
HQ1 Chapter Master Power Fist Gorgon's Chain Artificer Armour Bike
HQ2 : Libarian Mastery Level 2 Bike The Mindforge Stave
HQ3 : Command Squad Bikes Apothecary 4 Grav-Guns

Troop 1 : Scout Squad
Troop 2 : Scout Squad

ALLIED DETACHMENT:White Scars
HQ1 : Chapter Master The Shield Eternal, Power Fist, Artificer Armour, Bike
Troop 1 : Scout Squad

INQUISITOR DETACHMENT: Codex Inquisition
Coteaz:
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor Rad Grenades
Elite1 : Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband 1 Ministorum Priest 2 Crusader with Power Sword
3 Death Cult Assassins with Power Sword and Power Axe
Elite2: Inquisitorial Henchmen WarbandMinistorum Priest 2 Crusader with Power Sword
3 Death Cult Assassins with Power Sword and Power Axe
TRANSPORT 1 : Land Raider Multi Melta
TRANSPORT 2 : Land Raider Multi Melta


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ultimate MSU Grey Knights/Eldar... bit of a Stelek list.(not that he knows anything about 40k this edition.) I like this list a lot. Also, bringing Howling Banshees to a tournament gets you a prize. I believe they're there to unlock a third serpent being the cheapest non-troop choice that can take them.

Coteaz
Order Xenos Inquisitor mastery level 1, rad grenades, 3x servo skulls
4 units of 3 acolytes in Psybacks
5x death cult assasins 1x banisher in a LR

ALLIED DETACHMENT: Eldar

HQ1 : Farseer, mantle of the laughing god eldar jetbike
Elite1 : 5x Howing banshees+ Wave Serpent
Troop 1 : 5x Dire avengers+ Wave Serpent
Troop 2 : 5x Dire avengers+ Wave Serpent
Wraithknight

Sorry, but I don't see any of those lists as remotely "innovative" and if that is your idea of competitive then it DOES mean the same as WAAC that you keep telling everyone it isn't...
Skriker

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:But these aren't the best lists, they're just re-hashes of lists from past tournaments. You can bring something better, almost all the time

I...are you being serious here?

The lists that 're-hashes' are very obviously reused for all the right reasons. They're winning lists. If there were better lists, all the time, as you claim, I can assure the collective think tank of the internet would have figured it out before you.

And all the lists you've posted so far would be decimated by a remotely tooled TauDar list. Meganobz? Meganobz? That's what you think is somehow better and more innovative? If so you're using the word innovative wrong.

Skriker wrote:Sorry, but I don't see any of those lists as remotely "innovative" and if that is your idea of competitive then it DOES mean the same as WAAC that you keep telling everyone it isn't...
Skriker

Did I say they were? They're just fun lists I liked.

Blacksails wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:But these aren't the best lists, they're just re-hashes of lists from past tournaments. You can bring something better, almost all the time

I...are you being serious here?

The lists that 're-hashes' are very obviously reused for all the right reasons. They're winning lists. If there were better lists, all the time, as you claim, I can assure the collective think tank of the internet would have figured it out before you.

And all the lists you've posted so far would be decimated by a remotely tooled TauDar list. Meganobz? Meganobz? That's what you think is somehow better and more innovative? If so you're using the word innovative wrong.

The 3 Chapter Master might actually do quite well, depending on the turn 1-2 shooting phase. O'vesa star might be able to shoot down 1 CM, but 3? It lacks the volume of attacks to deal with more conventional lists, however. Again, these are just fun, non Riptide-spam lists I thought were standing out from the norm.

All winning lists have weaknesses. Simply rehashing a winning list is boring and repetitive, and displays a fundamental lack of imagination or creativity. I think you're putting too much faith in the collective think tank of the internet. Where is the collected wisdom of this supposedly omniscient gestalt meant to be found? 1d4chan?

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


The 3 Chapter Master might actually do quite well, depending on the turn 1-2 shooting phase. O'vesa star might be able to shoot down 1 CM, but 3? It lacks the volume of attacks to deal with more conventional lists, however. Again, these are just fun, non Riptide-spam lists I thought were standing out from the norm.

All winning lists have weaknesses. Simply rehashing a winning list is boring and repetitive, and displays a fundamental lack of imagination or creativity. I think you're putting too much faith in the collective think tank of the internet. Where is the collected wisdom of this supposedly omniscient gestalt meant to be found? 1d4chan?

I feel like all you want to hear is this;

"Any list not found anywhere on the internet is a good list. Anything else that has ever been posted on the internet is bad and means you lack creativity and/or are unimaginative."

Go ahead and call variations of strong and popular lists unimaginative or lacking creativity, but when it comes to designing a winning list, there's a certain creativity to make the best list possible. A lot of them will look similar because *gasp* they're strong choices and other people will figure it out, either on their own or using the internet.

By the way, using min scout squads and max HQ choices isn't imaginative or creative, at least not anymore than using a lot of riptides or heldrakes.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Skriker wrote:Sorry, but I don't see any of those lists as remotely "innovative" and if that is your idea of competitive then it DOES mean the same as WAAC that you keep telling everyone it isn't...
Skriker

Did I say they were? They're just fun lists I liked.

Well my mistake then that after post after post about innovative lists and the like you post some lists and I expect they will be those self same innovations. Silly me...should have expect fun lists instead since that was the topic of the thread and most of your posts...

Skriker

It's the fault of group think, not this or any other specific game.

In competitive games with common resources, people copy what worked once.

In MtG tours, you typically see one dominant deck played by most of the field, and everyone else is playing decks specifically designed to beat that deck.

How many NFL teams started running the West Coast offense after Bill Walsh's 49ers?

Humans copy what they perceive as successful. It's in their nature.