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.

With all the bullying that goes on online about WAAC lists, etc...I was thinking (Which gets dangerous).

I build my lists not to lose. I believe there is a difference.

There is a theme, or rather, a feel I suppose, that I am going for in my lists. But I also make sure that there is no type of list that is an 'auto-loss' for me if I come against it. So my armies can generally handle about anything, and thus are relatively powerful lists. If in the playing of a list, I come across a weakness in the list against something, I try to find a way to plug that hole while keeping the feel of the list and not opening up another hole.

This is why I'm a fan of generalist units, like the oft-labeled 'inefficient' 8 man las/plas squad w/power fist Sgt and possibly true grit (10 man for CSM's). There is nothing that this squad will come up against and say 'I can't do anything against that', or even 'It's unlikely that I can do anything against that'. The lascannon may not be the best weapon in every situation, but it is a weapon that can reach out and touch anything from long range. The plasma is the only weapon in the Marine arsenal that synergies with a bolter and can also hurt almost anything (If Marines could take Grenade launchers , I'd probably take some of those too - I know I do in my Guard army). The squad has the bolters and true grit to deal with hordes, and the power fist to deal with big nasties that make it to hand to hand.

Losing to a Rock-Paper-Scissors match up is one of the least fun things in the game and I do everything under my control to make sure that this doesn't happen.

Just food for thought or rambling...Take your pick.

I wouldn't say that a preference for generalist units is a preference for an army that's built to avoid losing. I'd say it's a preference for a tough and highly redundant army.

People talk about synergy in 40k, but they often ignore the concurrent effects of redundancy and flexibility. I agree that the over-emphasis on synergy is what generates the rock-paper-scissors game, what I'd call the "Eldar Game" since Eldar armies depend on a synergy between specialists to work well, usually at the expense of redundancy and flexibility.

Flexible units really benefit from redundancy, making sure that you have something everywhere and everywhen in the game. Mixing flexible units with specialists units gives you the worst of both worlds at certain points breaks: You don't have enough points to cover the gaps in the specialists if your units have redundancy, and you don't have the same coveraged on the board.

But if you have enough points, or you can take small enough units, then you can fit enough specialist and generalist units in an army together to make it hit hard without being brittle (and thus open to rock-scissors-paper).

It has to be remembered that units shouldn’t be operating in isolation, and that units should complement each other. A list should have multiple options for dealing with each possible problem, but it doesn’t necessarily extend to requiring every unit to be capable of taking on all possible threats. The cost of gearing units up like that would be exorbitant, and result in lists with too few units of the field, which will ultimately costing the army redundancy anyway.

With that in mind, it’s worth building lists with a balance of specialist units and generalist units. Specialised units are the first choice to target key enemy targets, and generalists units to fill in the gaps when things go wrong.

Most successful tournament lists have that versatility… it’s in defence that you see specialisation. Defence being the type of vulnerability you bring to the field… if you bring a few heavy troops, a few light troops and a few tanks, you give each of the enemy’s weapons one ideal target to shoot at. But if you bring purely GEQ you’re basically wasting all the enemy’s plasma weapons and lascannon. By loading up purely on tanks you waste all the enemy’s small arms and low strength heavy weapons, like heavy bolters.

To look at the dominant tourney armies, the flying circus will bring range of AT and AP to the field, but it’s only giving the enemy highly resilient skimmers to shoot at, and wasting all the enemy’s low strength weapons. Nidzilla has MCs geared for AP and AT roles, but is only giving the enemy MCs to shoot at, again wasting the enemy’s low strength weapons.

Generalise in offence, specialise in defence.

I think I know what you're talking about. When I take my Drop pods to a tourney, I know that I can win all three and make a play for best general. I also know that I could end up 0-2-1 if I get bad draws or just play sloppily.

On the other hand, my IG seldom loses too many games in a row. Even with IG, I usually only win when I play all infantry, but when I lose, I lose awful. With a balanced list (infantry, lemans, RRs, etc), I tend to stay in most games.