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've realized while building my first army list that I seem to prefer mobility over durability. I like the idea of moving around the battlefield picking my own battles much more than having units with various weapons for what my opponent may or may not even have. As a result, I don't have a whole lot of diversity in my weapons, but enough mobility to get from one place to another.

How do you prefer building your lists? Do you like TAC lists with a wide array of weapon options, a more strategic approach where you know what your army excels at and play accordingly, or something else entirely?

Depends on the army I am using, who I am playing against or what terrain we have available really. You can take the same 2k point list and have new tactics with every game you play really.

With the new unbound rules, Im most definitely building pure fluff or themed lists.

Despite some of the hate I think its a great addition to the game.

Next up is a pure Nidzilla list:
2 tervis
2 tfexes
4 carnis
Swarmy
2 trygons
2 tguard

First, I suggest an army building tool such as Battlescribe. You'll be able to revise quickly and keep up with your thought patterns versus pen and paper. It's easier to see the "whole picture" as you plan.

Next, look at your army and which units are strong. Now which units are on-par. Finally, which units are less than stellar, but may still fulfill a role. Decide on which units best fit to a play style you feel will most enjoy. If you're going to want to take a certain unit or two purely on aesthetics, then make sure you identify what category they fall into so you can either make up for their deficiencies or leverage their strengths.

A TAC list is always the best bet, however you can always have fun with a certain flavor of army, such as alpha strike, beta strike, deathstar, gunlines, all speed, etc. You have to realize that you'll have incredibly bad match ups no matter what list you bring because this is what 40k has become since the end of 5th edition. The notion of a true TAC list is dead because you cannot prepare for every situation you'll face, you must instead do the best you can in the worst situations and then capitalize on the best situations.

I personally go with a theme and then see what the final product looks like. Mull it over a bit. I usually build a list or three a day from random armies just to get me thinking about their interactions and how I'd play them.

I look at my models and throw together what I feel like playing, adhering to something remotely fluffy at all costs. That's all that really goes into it, to be honest. The rule of cool is the only rule that matters.

I get my favorite models, ask my friend whats in his list, change my models to make the game fun, then fight it out on a nicely set out table.

I usually favour line infantry backed by a couple of support weapons but usually just line infantry. If they look cool walking in ranks, then they fit in my army.

Thats about it really.

Don't have the fund to switch around, so I got a single list for 2k.

Less than that, I prioritize artillery carriages and Grenadiers, because they're my favorite units.

For pick-up games, I just throw something together in Battlescribe before the game based on what I feel like playing that day. I usually try to build TAC lists, and avoid spamming units - I feel like it's better practice, and more fun for myself and the opponent. I do try to tailor my list to be "fair" against opponents who are inexperienced, or who don't have a lot of models - or else I'll just bring something wacky to try out. Occasionally I'll do a themed force, but I don't care about that too much.

For tournaments, I think about what the other players might bring, and build accordingly (we have a fairly small group of players, and I have a good idea of what sort of models they field). I'll then play about 5 games with the list, tweaking it only slightly, and never just before the tournament. I don't even attempt to stick to a theme with tournaments - though my dudes are painted as Salamanders, I totally use white scars chapter tactics and spam bikes with gravguns, cause they win. I enjoy the bareknuckle WAAC flavor of tournament, and there's no dirty trick, no spammy bs list I wouldn't be willing to try.

My priority. Is usually theme. Full blown assault (I know, crazy for SoB) vs ranged and hide or perhaps just fully penitent (and rage across the battlefield).

After that I tweak small elements for the type of opponent and mission. And usually I try to have an answer for AV14, high armour save, flyers, MC etc. it doesn't mean a hard counter. My answer to flyers is sometimes "have more bodies than they can kill!" :p


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I recommend quartermaster app. Battlescribe is good too.

Usually base it off a gimic or theme then build off of that. making sure i have most of my bases covered.

Mech Commander here
I always take x4 AC Armoured Sentinels. I know they be about as much use as a cardbord box for body armour but my Guard are a mechinized elite urban combat group. So sentinels as well as both of the MK-I's and MK-IV Battle sentinels (see my Gallery for the Battle Sentinels, counts as LRBT exterminators).
Yeah, I'm going for the battle mech look

Depends. I actually enjoy close-combat oriented armies, which is completely and utterly insane in the current edition.
I also like fluffy armies, which is impossible with the current codex CSM has.
Also, I'm kinda weird. Which you probably figured out already.

I pick a theme and build around that them, optimizing to make it competitive.

I currently have...

My Army of Heroes: DriagoWing army, Driago, Librarian, 20 Paladins, 3 Dradknights, 3 Dreads, and a Stoemraven. Started it when the Internet said Driago and Paladins wouldn't work before it was named DriagoWing. Was an Ard Boyz Finalist with them. Bought all the models on oreorder before the Dex dropped.

Suits and Drone: Farsight Enclaves with 2 Commanders, Farsight, 17 Suits of many configurations, 3 Riptides, 1 Broadside, a ton of Drones, and 12 Firewarrior Drones(Count as Firewarriors). Taken and done well and will continue to take to GTs and tournaments.

Wraith Army: Forgeworld Avatar, 2 Spiritseers, 5 Wraithscythes, 10 Wraithguard, 5 Wraithblades, 2 Wraithknights, and 3 Wave Serpents. Still need a 4th Serpent... Will take to local tournaments. Main tournament list may be a Wraith/Suit list.

In 5th before I got out for a bit...
In the past I've had Flying S10 Librarian Blood Angels.., Mephy Librarian Libby Dreads...
Assault MC Tyranids
Skimmer Eldar

In 4th
Destroyer Necrons
And my Original grey Knights.

All my lists are building towards a giant 50k army. From here I just try and think of every eventuality in a game, it's worked for the most part. I have my share of losses, but not to the armies I expected, this is partially due to me coming prepared for the tactics of the dominating armies that I have overlooked weaker ones and got caught, but that flaw was fixed and hasn't been an issue.

Build what you like. Don't try and build what will get you the most wins. You'll be much happier this way.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Build what you like. Don't try and build what will get you the most wins. You'll be much happier this way.

I don't entirely agree with your point here. While I always try to build fluffy lists that would look cool on the table rather than copy-paste netlists, I found out that losing badly because of bad army list is really off-putting, especially when it happens few times in a row. There always should be some kind of a middle ground between the rule of cool and trying to win because no matter how cool your force looks and feels, you'll start to hate playing it because it almost always loses badly.

Overall it's worth checking if, in addition to the 'oh, pretty!' models you can fit in your army those very good ones from your codex that would synergize well with them. Or at least carry the sub-optimal cool units to victory. Either that or grab a netlist and then see what could you replace with cool things without ruining it, so you can still win some games while using fun stuff.

I generally stick with roughly the same army no matter the situation, depending on where I'm playing - at the FLGS I'm more likely to include my scratchbuilt stuff, for example.

I find myself building very aggressive armies, though - maybe its just because I'm used to playing with predominantly bolter-armed models that are best used within 12" of the enemy, but I feel like if I can't ram 50-60% of my army down the enemy's throat by turn 2 I'm doing something really wrong.

No, I'm not talking about assault, I'm talking about intense close-range firepower. :p

I generally prefer a TAC mobile fighting force, often with some more static backfield elements to round up some support and objective holding (the skyfire nerf hurt that aspect of my lists rather badly though...).

99% of my games are such where both sides know which army the other is playing so a certain degree of list tailoring on both sides is to be expected.

I first check what units are used in big tournament lists, then I check how much the stuff costs and make a list that I can buy and which is good.

I focus on what I really want in my army: Mephiston, 2 Baal Preds, etc.

And then I throw in some other things that match the theme.

 Klerych wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Build what you like. Don't try and build what will get you the most wins. You'll be much happier this way.

I don't entirely agree with your point here. While I always try to build fluffy lists that would look cool on the table rather than copy-paste netlists, I found out that losing badly because of bad army list is really off-putting, especially when it happens few times in a row. There always should be some kind of a middle ground between the rule of cool and trying to win because no matter how cool your force looks and feels, you'll start to hate playing it because it almost always loses badly.

Overall it's worth checking if, in addition to the 'oh, pretty!' models you can fit in your army those very good ones from your codex that would synergize well with them. Or at least carry the sub-optimal cool units to victory. Either that or grab a netlist and then see what could you replace with cool things without ruining it, so you can still win some games while using fun stuff.

I was mostly suggesting that as a place to start. Even I started with units that I liked above all, got stomped really bad, so I started adding in some support and building a theme for what I like. Originally this was Gene Stealers, but now it has shifted to an all Aerial/Gargoyle army, as well as the new BA army I am building.