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 find that my lists when I first draw them up seem to take the direction of anti-tank, unless of course I'm specifically thinking about taking out hordes of troops....and I always seem to gravitate towards shooting.

I find normally I have to consider a HtH defense with something around 100 pts if anything at all. As a result my initial lists are almost always handicapped in CC ability. (something I consider to be a HUGE problem in 5e considering the need to clear enemies off of objectives and the like)

What direction do you find yourself taking when drawing up a new army list. Which aspects of abilities do you consider the most important?

My armies trend a bit more towards shooting than towards HtH, and I tend to be pretty balanced in my anti-vehicle vs. anti-infantry weighting.

My lists always gravitate towards maneuverability and lots of individually-expendable units. I have a prejudice against extremely expensive and killy super-units or characters, and I really like to win by outmaneuvering my opponent and achieving the mission objectives. This is a philosophy that is handicapping me a bit in kill point missions.

My tyranid force was hand to hand, my space marines are shaping up to be a gunline horde with a fast strike close combat element.

I gravitate towards what I want to do at the time. I got tired of the big horde so I made a gunline.

I'm kind of the opposite of Mannahnin. I likes me some big scrappy Death Star style units. GoGo Gadjet Deceiver!

Depends on the day of the week. I'll tend to play towards and armies strengths, but my orks are a large and varied collection and I tend to hop from concept to concept with them.
My plague marines are pretty much an exact balance between anti-horde, anti-tank, shooting and close combat.

I'm not a huge fan of deathstar units in tournaments because I've had bad experiences with a turn of bad luck torching them badly. I do think they are more workable in 5th though, since they don't have to make their points back.

I tend to favour hand-to-hand stuff, because hand-to-hand casualties count more than shooting casualties.

If you shoot a unit, stuff might die. If enough dies, they might take a leadership test, that might be completely ignored (by fearless units).

If you assault a unit, you not only might kill stuff, but you also stop it from shooting you. Casualties inflicted in close-combat actually reduce the Leadership of the unit that might have to test, and if they fail the test, you can remove the whole unit instead of giving it a chance to regroup later. Fearless units don't get off for free either, they take extra saves, potentially losing more models.

In addition, the simple act of assaulting grants you extra inches of movement. Standing still and shooting, whether at tanks or at infantry, is too static for 5th edition missions.

Good assault units have answers for tanks built-in, whether they be high-strength hand-to-hand attacks or simple grenades that hit rear armour.

The two downsides to close-combat is that, well, you start pretty far from your opponent, and that if they have a better close-combat unit, you can be SOL.

So, I start out planning for close-combat, and then start figuring out how I'm going to get there, and what I'm going to do if faced with a better CC unit.

my builds tend to favor hand to hand.

I try to keep a balanced list. I want good firepower and good HtH. I prefer my HtH to have mobility, so I try to ensure that I have transports.

I like to have a fact unit or two, as well. Usually bikes. I have a *thing* for 'em.

Eric

I'm with Redbeard, assault armies pay off better for my playstyle.

Though I tend to do shooty with Eldar.

Mike

As a Tyranid player, I set up my anti-tank first. I have the most difficult time overcoming a tank at range, so it is the first thing I worry about. A standard build will let me be competitive with most enemy forces, so I figure out my ability to kill tanks first.

I tend to lean more towards anti tank since pretty much everyone I play against play marines. Low ap high str shots come in handy when playing against rhinos, terminators, and the occasional land raider.

With my CSM- HTH with some anti tank mixed in.

With my guard- Balanced shooty with some counter charge.

Low model count is my only concern these days. I build whatever list can handle itself with as few models as possible. Having played and enjoyed warmachine, the idea of going back to moving 120+ models around turns my stomach.

try to keep a balanced list of HTH combat and shooting.

I perfer maneuverable MSU close range shooting armies that aren't a slouch in hand to hand backed up by tanks.

Thus I quit when the rules changed.

i prefer a mobile shooting army, recently i have gone guard which is a refreshing change but i have platoons that move forward and sentinals and stormtroopers to give me a mobile element to the army which is nice

I'm going to be taking Lash this year to the GT though and i am unsure what kind of build to take, obv their will be 2 Lash Princes and 6 Oblits, however afterwards i was thinking either CSM backed up by Lesser Daemons nice and mobile and gets in your face quickly, but i'm worried about orks i am tempted with 2 vindies and 2 oblits to give me pie plate firepower so i can thin ork hordes, and then it comes down to troops, berzerkers, plague marines or regular CSM its going to be tough deciding my rhino rushing units its a large conundrum

but mobile heavy firepower is the way to go always it allows you to pick your opponents army piece by piece and move in to capture objectives/defend them

my marines are also very mobile, lots of transports and vehicles backed up with assault marines for counter charge ability or first strike with shrike

my general consensus is the army must move fast and hit as hard as possible

however i have become a fan of the guard gun line but ive got to wait and see what happens with their new dex,

Anti-Tank.

I'll start by working out what AT I can put in, and once that's done work on everything else. Don't know why...

BYE

5th edition is all about hand to hand IMO. Kairos fateweaver and 24 Blood crushers has become the new ubber and very few armies can deal with it. WTG GW.

(1) Hand to hand
(2) Mobility
(3) Shoot

My primary army is zilla nid mods, and its a pretty tough nut to crack, does overall pretty well in all mission types.

Static AT armies are a recipe for loss. DS and outflank ensure this.

Lemartes and Redbeard have it I think.

Other...Anti-Meq

1) Take the dice out of my opponents hands. (Ignore armor saves, Banshees, Dragons, W'lords)
2) Give myself as many chances to hit and wound as possible (High volume of fire, or High strength)
3) Toughness, and Saves. (Fortuned Wraithguard, W-lords, Jetbikes, Transports)

I play Eldar and usually build to fight Meq/AT... Course I end up facing two Orc armys and a Dark Eldar at 'Ard Boyz.

My list is based around the models I have painted more than anything.

Still, I always keep anti-tank in mind. Most of my first games in 40K were against 3 pie-plate guard.

I favor mech lists with very strong cc units.

G

HtH is too good. Not only is the loser crushed due to new resolution but combi charges can effectively eliminate multiple units at once.