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.

 kronk wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Why are multiple, repeat units looked down upon?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Heck, if I managed to get the first turn, got all my units in range, and activated the right abilities, I could easily remove half his army before he got to do anything.

You just answered your own question.

Replace your army with Eldar Bikes and you'll have a similar outcome, I bet.

and yet marines cant do the same thing with a troops choice

What magical space marine troops choice can remove half of another side's army in the first turn of shooting? What SM troop spam can pump out the same amount of fire power as:

3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culvrens
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters, one with twin linked phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths


Don't get me wrong, OP. I'd play the above list and we'd have a fun game (unless you're an donkey-cave in person), but don't fall into the trap that all codecies have the same firepower. Limiting the players to no allies is not putting everyone's army on the same footing.

This is the problem with asinine, poorly thought out restrictions like this. If you ban or nerf something broad like allies, something new becomes the broken thing. Harlequins without allies are basically worthless. Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids don't suffer at all without allies and wouldn't take them to begin with most of the time. I would probably suggest your friends look into the ITC or Nova packets to balance the game. They aren't perfect but they aren't nearly as bad as what you guys are dealing with right now.

The purpose of the restriction is to cut down on 'cheese', which is subjective in the first place. And a great deal of cheese is possible even following the restriction.

A hard rule isn't as useful as following the guidelines. One of my self-imposed "rules" is to use the CAD, but I can't exactly do that with Harlequins. I still run Harlequins, but it doesn't feel like a violation, because in spirit, its not.

 kronk wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Why are multiple, repeat units looked down upon?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Heck, if I managed to get the first turn, got all my units in range, and activated the right abilities, I could easily remove half his army before he got to do anything.

You just answered your own question.

Replace your army with Eldar Bikes and you'll have a similar outcome, I bet.

and yet marines cant do the same thing with a troops choice

What magical space marine troops choice can remove half of another side's army in the first turn of shooting? What SM troop spam can pump out the same amount of fire power as:

3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culvrens
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters, one with twin linked phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths


Don't get me wrong, OP. I'd play the above list and we'd have a fun game (unless you're an donkey-cave in person), but don't fall into the trap that all codecies have the same firepower. Limiting the players to no allies is not putting everyone's army on the same footing.

Why should space Marines have an equivalent? The whole point of different armies is different strengths and weaknesses. Cult mech have little mobility, no vehicles, and their assault troops are poor unless you invest nearly 400 points in a single unit. 3 Kataphron destroyers with grav cannons is 165 points, for 6 t5 4+ wounds. Yeah it's nice having troops with heavy weapons, but they die quickly, and every model is missed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
In my view, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of actually playing the game...to see who wins?

Building an effective list (including understanding the metagame and bringing an appropriate counter) is part of the game. Your question is like asking whether the shooting phase defeats the purpose of "actually playing the game", since it lets you gain an advantage over your opponent before the assault phase happens.

Designing a list for a tournament is definitely part of the game. But taking an all "rock" list in a single, friendly game? If you meet up with scissors, it's a lopsided game....same with paper.

Do you enjoy lopsided games? I am legitimately curious, because I like close games that come down to one objective, or just a couple of units fighting for secondaries / tertiaries. Even Tabling is fun if there is only a unit or two left on one side.

Aki,
Are you sure you've never heard complaints about TFG in FPSes or RTSes?

For FPSes, have you never heard of "Campers" or "AWP[ladyofthenight]s? Noob sticks?

For RTSes, you've never heard people complain about rushes?

You wouldn't hear these things so much at tournaments, but you'd certainly hear these things on small private networks or public servers.

Likewise, with WMH, you don't hear a lot of TFG calls at tournies, but in local metas, its fairly common. There was a bit of it on the forums too, back when I played, but it wasn't as common as in the local meta. I know I certainly preferred games without Gargants, while fully recognizing their legality (not that I had trouble winning against them - I just didn't enjoy those games).

Even in Chess, if I'm playing some random person who's bored and there is a chessboard, I'll play to win, but I won't think too hard on it. But if someone is going on about how good they are, and want a challenge, I'll try harder.

If a bunch of locals are playing some PUG baseball or something, how much fun do you think they'll have if you show up with the Yankees and kick the snot out of them?

Bharring wrote:
Aki,
Are you sure you've never heard complaints about TFG in FPSes or RTSes?

For FPSes, have you never heard of "Campers" or "AWP[ladyofthenight]s? Noob sticks?

For RTSes, you've never heard people complain about rushes?

None of those are TFG, that word doesn't get bandied about in the gaming community. People complain about everything in anything (it's funny you mentioned the yankees...), but that doesn't make it the same as TFG.

Honestly, in most online gaming I hear everyone refer to people as...African American Companions.
This does refer to Campers, Rushers, Knifers, Junglers, Stealth Champ Users (I mained Twitch), and pretty much anyone doing well when anyone else is doing poor. It's not really the same word/meaning as it carries in 40k.

Bharring wrote:

You wouldn't hear these things so much at tournaments, but you'd certainly hear these things on small private networks or public servers.
Likewise, with WMH, you don't hear a lot of TFG calls at tournies, but in local metas, its fairly common. There was a bit of it on the forums too, back when I played, but it wasn't as common as in the local meta. I know I certainly preferred games without Gargants, while fully recognizing their legality (not that I had trouble winning against them - I just didn't enjoy those games).

I think that's local dependent though. Locally I have never seen anyone called TFG because of his list, its more to do with behavior. And a lot of people run the better tiers and lists in my area, a few players travel for tournaments. I've seen all the popular tiers...we had 4 troll players who are tournament level good running all of the tiers. Never got called TFG for it. 40k is the only game I see TFG being called out based on list design, and that's universal. You see it locally at some spots, and certainly on the online community.

I've never, in regards to WMH, heard of it being fairly common. If it was I imagine it would leak over to the online community as well, which you see in the 40k community on every 40k website. It's not really present in the WMH community.

I'm surprised you disliked Gargants as they are, largely, terrible. The new ones aren't bad if we are talking about the GK and BlightBringer (especially with pThags) but nobody calls those guys TFG, but by and large Gargants are just awful. Even as a cygnar player I'm not afraid of them, as a cryx player or skorne player I love seeing them. It's free points.
Are you saying people who bring Gargants are TFG? Otherwise I'm afraid I don't see your point.

Bharring wrote:

Even in Chess, if I'm playing some random person who's bored and there is a chessboard, I'll play to win, but I won't think too hard on it. But if someone is going on about how good they are, and want a challenge, I'll try harder.
If a bunch of locals are playing some PUG baseball or something, how much fun do you think they'll have if you show up with the Yankees and kick the snot out of them?

I think the example of me bringing the Yankees to a local baseball game is, frankly, ludicrous.
If I showed up to a WMH tournament with JVM in tow and he entered for me, that would be equivalent to what you're describing and make me TFG (and pretty wealthy I suppose?).

Showing up with Double Stormwalls isn't the same thing as hiring the yankees. Some armies don't even mind seeing double storm walls, notably MMM or RoW. Even EE doesn't care too much, although it's rougher for them....I imagine the new Doomy 3 tier will walk all over it. I can't imagine any local group would be happy to see the yankees roll up across from them, unless they are from New york.

I think we're not quite on the same page.

If its a tourny, go nuts. Of course.

My point was more casual games. Let's say we're at a FLGS, and you know I don't like gargants, and I ask you if you want a quick game. No standings, no rankings, just some dice and models.

Would you field a gargant? Maybe if you loved your stormwall. And from time to time it wouldn't bother me. But let's say its one of two options and you kinda like them both equally.

There is nothing that requires you to not always take Storm wall when we go head to head. So it might be nice to sometimes not take it when you play against me.

That is how I see 40k. If my next game is against some guy who just doesn't win often. I probably want to throw in the Rangers and Banshees. (Tournaments are different, of course).

To that end, if you build a list that has a 95% chance of winning, and you're playing someone who is more of a fluffbunny, or just wants to see their beautifully modelled and painted Mutilators mutilate things, is that really the best option?

(I actually played Cygnar too. The faction that always got punished for bringing a gun to a knife fight. Beating Gargant lists wasnt a problem, I just didn't enjoy it as much as even losing against non-Gargant lists.)

This topic has been bugging me so hard as soon as I saw this forum post I had to make an account to reply.
As a person just returning to the hobby (I used to have an orc and gobs army years ago) I want to start a 40k orks army (seeing as the old world is dead). Something I loved about my old orcs were the sheer numbers of them and I love the idea of swarming my enemy with sluggas and shootas to relive my old games.

However through the past few weeks of looking through 40k gaming culture I've learnt alot about gaming ettiquette I never considered as a kid and after learning about how cost efficient boyz are I would hate to become TFG when trying to make new friends through 40k.

Is fielding an army list of almost exclusively boyz frowned upon? I really want to just see hundreds of them so badly yet I would hate to drive away people from playing against me. Help me out dakka !

On a sidenote I'm still trying to relearn forum ettiquette too so if you think I should be posting this as a new thread PLEASE let me know! Thanks guys.

Cause people dont like loosing and look for excuses and blame the other person rather than honest self reflection

Slugga,
I highly doubt anyone has a problem with "too many Orks!", beyond the time it takes you to move them. Those are some of my favorite games!

Some units make sense to spam. Like Gaunts and Tacs and Necron Warriors.

That said, you may have more fun if you include just a few other things...

Yeah Ive been eyeing those bikers too to be honest so long as I can field a ridiculous number of boy anyway!

Sluggaloo wrote:
This topic has been bugging me so hard as soon as I saw this forum post I had to make an account to reply.
As a person just returning to the hobby (I used to have an orc and gobs army years ago) I want to start a 40k orks army (seeing as the old world is dead). Something I loved about my old orcs were the sheer numbers of them and I love the idea of swarming my enemy with sluggas and shootas to relive my old games.

However through the past few weeks of looking through 40k gaming culture I've learnt alot about gaming ettiquette I never considered as a kid and after learning about how cost efficient boyz are I would hate to become TFG when trying to make new friends through 40k.

Is fielding an army list of almost exclusively boyz frowned upon? I really want to just see hundreds of them so badly yet I would hate to drive away people from playing against me. Help me out dakka !

On a sidenote I'm still trying to relearn forum ettiquette too so if you think I should be posting this as a new thread PLEASE let me know! Thanks guys.

Welcome to 40k and Dakka.

Mostly people have a problem with spamming of the overpowered stuff. I don’t think that’s a big worry with boyz.

It’s also worth noting that what we might quibble about online might just be handwaved away at the table. If you are worried about what people will think, check at your FLGS. They might have a different set of hang ups then us random folk on the internet.

Bharring wrote:
I think we're not quite on the same page.

If its a tourny, go nuts. Of course.

My point was more casual games. Let's say we're at a FLGS, and you know I don't like gargants, and I ask you if you want a quick game. No standings, no rankings, just some dice and models.

If this was WMH, I would have two lists with me most likely. I would just use one of my other lists, most likely eCaine. Or H3, neither one takes a stormwall with me.
Having 2 lists with a stormwall is a mistake, IMO, and you don't often see units spammed across both lists with rare exceptions (Mage Hunters, PGBH, Choir).

Bharring wrote:

Would you field a gargant? Maybe if you loved your stormwall. And from time to time it wouldn't bother me. But let's say its one of two options and you kinda like them both equally.

There is nothing that requires you to not always take Storm wall when we go head to head. So it might be nice to sometimes not take it when you play against me.

I see where you are coming from, and let me counter it with this.
If I showed up with a 2 list pairing and one had a stormwall and one did not (caster doesn't matter here really, lots of casters run a stormwall and many don't) I can see the following happen.
I play my stormwall list into you. You roll with it, and deal with. It continues week after week after week, and I ignore you and your requests.
Am I TFG because my list contains a stormwall, or TFG because my behavior has lead to me denying your requests to play a non-stormwall list?

I think it's the behavior. There is nothing naturally TFG about a single or double stormwall list.

In 40k, this would be different. I would be TFG for playing an eldar list using a host of units, regardless of how frequently I played it. If you played CSM and I played Eldar, using Scatbikes or WK or WG or even a host of choices would be like kicking a child in the face.

That's my point. In other wargames, because balance is better, behavior determines TFG. In 40k, list determines TFG. Behavior does too, but it seems most people are upset about list construction.

Bharring wrote:

That is how I see 40k. If my next game is against some guy who just doesn't win often. I probably want to throw in the Rangers and Banshees. (Tournaments are different, of course).

To that end, if you build a list that has a 95% chance of winning, and you're playing someone who is more of a fluffbunny, or just wants to see their beautifully modelled and painted Mutilators mutilate things, is that really the best option?

Depends on why we are playing.
If it's one of the people from the mutilator thread, I'd bring out all the cheese from my eldar list. I see what you're saying, but you're proving my point.

To be fair, I don't think our points are mutually exclusive. I think the imbalance of the factions in 40k makes TFG behavior (and the word) become more frequent. The...personality (tone? feel?) of WMH being a semi-competitive game all the time also helps with that, as does the assumed 2-list format.
For example, the one time I see TFG being thrown around is when people "net-deck" you. As in, they don't show up with a 2-List pairing, know you play Cryx, so drop their cryx drop army into you all the time. I don't see that as a list construction related TFG thing, but more of a behavior of the player thing, although it is related.

In 40k, I see people calling others TFG because they spam units (no one would call the doom reaver army player TFG), play certain dexes (eldar, tau, necron), use formations (decurion), use allies (less now but in 6th with the baron...), use certain weapons (grav) use LoW (draigo)...the behavior of the player is mentioned on occasion, though its rare.

Bharring wrote:

(I actually played Cygnar too. The faction that always got punished for bringing a gun to a knife fight. Beating Gargant lists wasnt a problem, I just didn't enjoy it as much as even losing against non-Gargant lists.)

I'm so glad they nerfed warders and EE. That's going to make it a lot better for Cygnar players. The nerf to H2 was also good...currently I'm using H3 and eCaine as my two list pair and its working great. I doubt either one could handle a double warder list without going for the caster or scenario. Probably would have had to drop H3 for H2 for that.

Most units that have grav guns also have guns that deal with light infantry. Take marine bikers for example, if i'm facing orks you switch to the tl bolters and chip away at them from afar. Same with Grav cents, keep the Hurricane bolters and you cut up light infantry. The only real weakness would be units with a high invul and low armor. There arn't to many of those stock. That's part of gravs problem, is it's in build weakness isn't really present.

Because samey, repeat units, 90% of the time are just spamming the same, optimised weapon (ie, Heavy Grav Cannons) because they do well or are powerful, rather than adding diversity and fun to the list. Some lists like Orks or Horde nids do it well, but when you have 6 Tactical Squads with Grav Gun, Combi-Grav and this and that with all grav it starts feeling less like a force and more like a collection of the best gear just to win.

Sluggaloo wrote:
This topic has been bugging me so hard as soon as I saw this forum post I had to make an account to reply.
As a person just returning to the hobby (I used to have an orc and gobs army years ago) I want to start a 40k orks army (seeing as the old world is dead). Something I loved about my old orcs were the sheer numbers of them and I love the idea of swarming my enemy with sluggas and shootas to relive my old games.

However through the past few weeks of looking through 40k gaming culture I've learnt alot about gaming ettiquette I never considered as a kid and after learning about how cost efficient boyz are I would hate to become TFG when trying to make new friends through 40k.

Is fielding an army list of almost exclusively boyz frowned upon? I really want to just see hundreds of them so badly yet I would hate to drive away people from playing against me. Help me out dakka !

On a sidenote I'm still trying to relearn forum ettiquette too so if you think I should be posting this as a new thread PLEASE let me know! Thanks guys.

Unless one of the players is an asshat, no one has a bad time in a game involving orks. No one. Buckets of boys are ok to lose to because you probably took your pound of flesh during the battle, and on the flip side, losing WITH orks is also fun for the same reason...more often than not many heads were cracked open regardless of the outcome of the game.

Orks, also, are at this moment considered to be a lesser dex (though some find ways to remain competitive), so there really isn't a negative stigma surrounding them like a few other codecis *cough* Eldar and Tau *cough*. About the only thing people may find issue with is if you pull out the MeK Stompa (which costs much less than codex version) in a game where someone wasn't planning on fighting it. That's somewhat questionable etiquette unless you know your opponent is cool with that unit.

Sluggaloo wrote:

Is fielding an army list of almost exclusively boyz frowned upon? I really want to just see hundreds of them so badly yet I would hate to drive away people from playing against me. Help me out dakka !

If Orks weren't swarming across the board in obscene numbers I'd be disappointed. Some armies scream horde such as Tyranids, Imperial Guard and, Orks


I would be surprised if someone didn't feel a tingle of glee at the prospect of facing down a swarm of the green beasts.

I think it depends on the unit. I hope to one day have a 'Nids army with mostly Gants, Gaunts, and Gargoyles with just enough Synapse creatures to keep them under control. Why? Because I used to play Zerg and there is nothing quite as beautiful as crushing your foe under the shear number of units.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Most units that have grav guns also have guns that deal with light infantry. Take marine bikers for example, if i'm facing orks you switch to the tl bolters and chip away at them from afar. Same with Grav cents, keep the Hurricane bolters and you cut up light infantry. The only real weakness would be units with a high invul and low armor. There arn't to many of those stock. That's part of gravs problem, is it's in build weakness isn't really present.

High T, low armor. Chaos spawn, for example. Also, grav ALWAYS allows FNP. The grav cannon has the wound output to not care. The grav gun? Not so much.

Forgot the spawn, they are a gem in the rough for the chaos codex. And yea grav guns arn't to bad, especially on non relentless platforms. I view them almost how I viewed Melta back in 5th, that it was kinda the special weapon that did it all and what it couldn't do I had plenty of in the army anyway.

Sluggaloo wrote:
This topic has been bugging me so hard as soon as I saw this forum post I had to make an account to reply.
As a person just returning to the hobby (I used to have an orc and gobs army years ago) I want to start a 40k orks army (seeing as the old world is dead). Something I loved about my old orcs were the sheer numbers of them and I love the idea of swarming my enemy with sluggas and shootas to relive my old games.

However through the past few weeks of looking through 40k gaming culture I've learnt alot about gaming ettiquette I never considered as a kid and after learning about how cost efficient boyz are I would hate to become TFG when trying to make new friends through 40k.

Is fielding an army list of almost exclusively boyz frowned upon? I really want to just see hundreds of them so badly yet I would hate to drive away people from playing against me. Help me out dakka !

On a sidenote I'm still trying to relearn forum ettiquette too so if you think I should be posting this as a new thread PLEASE let me know! Thanks guys.

Ork boyz are an exception, generally, although Green Tide (the formation) can be boring for both sides. If the blob gets a lot of units stuck in combat, it's just one big combat and there's not much movement.

In my opinion, the reason I look down on spam lists is that a good wargame will simply not allow such lists to be viable. Because no single unit should be able to fulfill all the classic military roles. A good game would set up battles so that each player needed a mix of elements to succeed. Big static guns can't move forward and capture objectives, nor can they respond to or carry out flank attacks. For those things you need basic troops and fast attack units. Likewise hard targets should exist enough that an army lacking at least some of those big guns is going to find itself struggling to hurt them.

When you start to put multiple roles onto one unit you cut down the requirement for the others, which in turn reduces the games depth. If someone can get away with spam it's an indictment of the state of the game. Units that do everything simply shouldn't exist. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be overlap. Enough tactical marine squads will replicate the firepower of a single devastator squad or the melee ability of assault marines and the choices of how points are spent is and should be a skill good generals possess. But when tactical squads can carry enough special weapons that devastators are no longer needed, or have upgrades that mean assault marines aren't cost effective there's a problem. At least in my opinion.

 Kojiro wrote:
In my opinion, the reason I look down on spam lists is that a good wargame will simply not allow such lists to be viable. Because no single unit should be able to fulfill all the classic military roles. A good game would set up battles so that each player needed a mix of elements to succeed. Big static guns can't move forward and capture objectives, nor can they respond to or carry out flank attacks. For those things you need basic troops and fast attack units. Likewise hard targets should exist enough that an army lacking at least some of those big guns is going to find itself struggling to hurt them.

When you start to put multiple roles onto one unit you cut down the requirement for the others, which in turn reduces the games depth. If someone can get away with spam it's an indictment of the state of the game. Units that do everything simply shouldn't exist. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be overlap. Enough tactical marine squads will replicate the firepower of a single devastator squad or the melee ability of assault marines and the choices of how points are spent is and should be a skill good generals possess. But when tactical squads can carry enough special weapons that devastators are no longer needed, or have upgrades that mean assault marines aren't cost effective there's a problem. At least in my opinion.

How many tactical squads would you say is too much? I like to run a lot of tac. squads, so I'd be interested to get others opinions/perspectives on this as it's always been a preference for thematic / hobby / financial reasons... And not specifically any tactical advantage (in fact, against well planned armies I tend to do rather gak xD).

 otahak wrote:

How many tactical squads would you say is too much? I like to run a lot of tac. squads, so I'd be interested to get others opinions/perspectives on this as it's always been a preference for thematic / hobby / financial reasons... And not specifically any tactical advantage (in fact, against well planned armies I tend to do rather gak xD).

The codex astartes say more than 6, at least in a battle company.

I am personally obsessed with running Loyalists according to the Codex Astartes' battle company structure. Feels fluffy and gives me a reason to use the MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAINS of tacticals I have.

 Kojiro wrote:
In my opinion, the reason I look down on spam lists is that a good wargame will simply not allow such lists to be viable. Because no single unit should be able to fulfill all the classic military roles. A good game would set up battles so that each player needed a mix of elements to succeed. Big static guns can't move forward and capture objectives, nor can they respond to or carry out flank attacks. For those things you need basic troops and fast attack units. Likewise hard targets should exist enough that an army lacking at least some of those big guns is going to find itself struggling to hurt them.

When you start to put multiple roles onto one unit you cut down the requirement for the others, which in turn reduces the games depth. If someone can get away with spam it's an indictment of the state of the game. Units that do everything simply shouldn't exist. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be overlap. Enough tactical marine squads will replicate the firepower of a single devastator squad or the melee ability of assault marines and the choices of how points are spent is and should be a skill good generals possess. But when tactical squads can carry enough special weapons that devastators are no longer needed, or have upgrades that mean assault marines aren't cost effective there's a problem. At least in my opinion.

I don't think its fair to say that "spam lists" shouldn't be viable. 40k isn't trying to emulate classic military roles and part of the fun is making thematic lists (such as Thousand Sons or Saim-Hann) which end up being a bit spammy because that's how the fluffly list is. All lists should be close to equal in functionality, not just on list style.

The problem is that the current state of the game makes spamming list more then equal in functionality to other lists. Thats a problem with 40k's balance and not the style of list though.

I don't think it's necessarily spamming a unit that's the issue. It's when the unit that is being spammed is a very strong unit that people start getting irritated. If I spam Tactical Marines, nobody will care because Tactical Marines aren't though of as super OP or anything like that. But if I use a ton of Jetbikes in my Eldar army then people will get angry, because Jetbikes are currently one of the top units in the Eldar codex

I don't have any issue with your list. That is about what I take for cult when playing them solo or making the War Convocation. Especially since it's one book only, no formations allowed you pretty much have the only viable army right there for Cult. I also totally understand your hate of electro priest I really don't like the models so I would never field them even with better rules.

I don't know what his list is but he must not make very "strong" list at all. Your friend would probably cry playing againts me too when I show up with my Ravenwing Strike Force detachment. Even without the formations, an ally knight or whatever I would probably wreck him really hard.

So yeah... Tell him to do better list because I can think of plenty of real cheese beyond just spaming simple troop choice or making themed list.

 kronk wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Why are multiple, repeat units looked down upon?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Heck, if I managed to get the first turn, got all my units in range, and activated the right abilities, I could easily remove half his army before he got to do anything.

You just answered your own question.

Replace your army with Eldar Bikes and you'll have a similar outcome, I bet.

and yet marines cant do the same thing with a troops choice

What magical space marine troops choice can remove half of another side's army in the first turn of shooting? What SM troop spam can pump out the same amount of fire power as:

3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culvrens
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters, one with twin linked phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths


Don't get me wrong, OP. I'd play the above list and we'd have a fun game (unless you're an donkey-cave in person), but don't fall into the trap that all codecies have the same firepower. Limiting the players to no allies is not putting everyone's army on the same footing.

Wow, haven't played against many marine armies huh.

Try:

2 Skyhammer Annhialation Forces with Grav devs
2 empty pods
2 pods with flamer tacticals
1 pod with melta Sternguard

Oh look it's the same list, but this time they can force you to go first so they have every advantage, you can't hide out of line of sight, and they have anti-infantry, grav and melta turn one instead of just grav.