Teschio wrote:
I never understood the reason behind such choices, to be honest... why force yourself to use weak units when you can avoid it? Maybe it's just me, but i always try to squeeze the most competitive list i can out of a codex...

Teschio wrote:
I never understood the reason behind such choices, to be honest... why force yourself to use weak units when you can avoid it? Maybe it's just me, but i always try to squeeze the most competitive list i can out of a codex...

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm very much in favour of how OP makes his lists.

As an Ork player though, I have to use what works in order to survive. I don't have the luxury of adding further restrictions to my army on top of the overall weakness of the Ork codex.

Teschio wrote:
GKs don't have a decent FA unit if you don't want a Stormraven

Rihgu wrote:
Wait, what? We get interceptors. Are you saying interceptors are not a decent unit?

 Anpu42 wrote:
Once more, this is an Etiquette, if for some reason cant or don’t want to that’s fine.

The main reason I started to do this is when 6th came out, we did this for 6 months to make sure there was a variety units out there to learn as many of the rules possible. Every month we were to use a different list and if you had it a different army. It was also a good learning experience and fum.
After the “Lets Learn 6th Edition Campaign” was over some e of like this and started to use it normaly and we enjoy it. We also like the fact we see units not being played that normally are not. The one Ork player started using his Helicopters and I pulled my Land Speeders off the shelf. Those turned out some of the more fun games with Choppers dog-fighting the Land Speeders.
It also got rid of the SPAM and we now are playing “Objectives” rather than “Clear the Board.”

All I can say is give it a try a few times with another player and see of your play style changes for those friendly games.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Once more, this is an Etiquette, if for some reason cant or don’t want to that’s fine.

The main reason I started to do this is when 6th came out, we did this for 6 months to make sure there was a variety units out there to learn as many of the rules possible. Every month we were to use a different list and if you had it a different army. It was also a good learning experience and fum.
After the “Lets Learn 6th Edition Campaign” was over some e of like this and started to use it normaly and we enjoy it. We also like the fact we see units not being played that normally are not. The one Ork player started using his Helicopters and I pulled my Land Speeders off the shelf. Those turned out some of the more fun games with Choppers dog-fighting the Land Speeders.
It also got rid of the SPAM and we now are playing “Objectives” rather than “Clear the Board.”

All I can say is give it a try a few times with another player and see of your play style changes for those friendly games.

See, if you say "we make lists with different units to try them", it's perfectly fine. The problem is, with the limitations you suggest some armies are not even slightly touched (Tau just to name one of those i use, but others as well), while others are crippled. Every set of limitation just creates a different metagame, sometimes limitations reduce the gap that is physiological between different armies, sometimes they increase it. In this case, they increase it. Most of the highly competitive armies right now are not touched by them or they need to make minimal changes, while other, weaker armies have no chance to win because they already find it hard to field competitive choices, limitations just eliminate what little chances they have.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, I agree that there ary many, many Meta's that this would be bad with, but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.
We have been duing well with:
>Blood Angels
>Dark Angels
>Grey Knights
>Guard [Though I have been force to play Vet Armies]
>Orks
>Space Marines
>Space Wolves
>Tyranids

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, I agree that there ary many, many Meta's that this would be bad with, but I personly think that all armies would be screwd if both players use this.
We have been duing well with:
>Blood Angels
>Dark Angels
>Grey Knights
>Guard [Though I have been force to play Vet Armies]
>Orks
>Space Marines
>Space Wolves
>Tyranids

With tyrs, for example, a REALLY competitive list fields 4 scoring units, 3 elites,one or two FAs and at least a HS. So it fits your restrictions perfectly. But it's the exact same army i will play with no restrictions at all! Obviously this would be a big advantage over armies that get screwed by these limitations... see, this limits don't affect all armies. Some are crippled, some are untouched. And be thankful none of your friends play Tau: they are one of the strongest armies right now, and most Tau lists are completely untouched by these limits => practically unbeatable.

 soomemafia wrote:
As the OP has said several times, this really isn't some must-have holy rule from the Satan himself, but an easy way to ensure that you haven't forgotten something important and thus made too unbalanced list.

Teschio wrote:
Ok, i tried to understand what this means, but i really can't... do you think a list is "balanced" if you take different units? "Balance" is not a synonym of "variety", you know... there are extremely unbalanced lists (meaning: lists that are not optimized to deal with different types of enemies) that use a lot of different units, and extremely balanced lists that just spam what's stronger in a codex. This is not always true, but it happens. Balance and performance have nothing to do with slots used.

What you should consider when building a list is not something like "do i have enough FA units?", it should be "how do i deal with hordes", "what can i do versus flyers spam", "do i have enough anti-tank weapons", "do i have a chance vs massive MEQs/TEQs units", "are my scoring units mobile/resistent/numerous enough to claim objectives", "what is my answer to fast assault units" etc. THIS makes a balanced list, not having units from every compartment. Some ultra-competitive armies totally ignore one compartment, and this doesn't make them unbalanced. If you think that a competitive list should necessarily contain a lot of different units to be balanced, we are not playing the same game here.

 Anpu42 wrote:

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

 Nevelon wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

I like your idea, and use that basic philosophy when making my own lists. While not a hard and fast rule, taking something from every FOC slot lends itself to a balanced TAC list. It is worth considering that what battlefield role a units fills is often not the same as it's slot suggests. So when putting together a TAC list, you need to keep the jobs you need done first and foremost in your mind. As a Ultramarine player, I have the luxury of being able to swap weapons on a lot of different platforms to do what I need them to do. Not every codex can do that.

As for how I make my blind TAC lists (which is every list I build)

Start with core HQ+2xTroops
Add units I want to use
Add units to fill the roles not covered with the fun stuff.

There is a sort of tiered internal checklist that I tick off as I'm building.

Tier 1, not optional: Does this list conform to the rules?
Tier 2, optional, but strongly encouraged: Is this a viable list? Do I have ways of dealing with flyers/heavy armor/hordes/etc?
Tier 3, Things I like, but aren't required. Do I have something from ever FOC slot? Fresh paint on the table? Units I've not fielded in a while? Some new trick?

While 3rd in priority, third tier stuff often drives what goes in my list. The issue is that I generally have more stuff in that bracket then I have points in my list, so some gets set aside for the next game. I would like to include as much tier 3 stuff as I can, I should have tier 2 covered, and I must follow tier 1.

 Anpu42 wrote:
As one of my fellow players put it; “Overspecialization Breeds in Weakness”.

I have seen many a list torn apart be having just one thing as their focus, look at the ALL Assault Armies; they are fun to play, but takes real skill to win with. Gunlines are doing well in 6th, but a good Pod Drop or a trio of Helldrakes can make this a useless strategy.

The other thing comes from this:
Our local Meta has developed into a “Take on All Comers” Meta. I don’t know what I am facing until about 10 min before the game normally and the same goes with my opponent. So I can’t go “Am I facing a Horde”” or “Do “I have enough Anti-Air?” until we roll to se what mission we are playing.
Now we know each others armies real well and I know if I am fighting Nids or Orks I am dealing with a Horde Army and Marines I don’t have to worry about AV14 as I am the only one with Land Raiders.
This set up also means it’s hard to make a SPAM list, so that is not a problem.
I also have a 1 in 3 chance that my Fast Attack or Heavy Support becoming a Scoring unit, giving me 5+ Scoring Units, 6+ if I run a Pedro/Sternguard List.

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

 Anpu42 wrote:
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

Teschio wrote:
Said Stuff

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

The word i don't really like is "reasonably". It may just be me, or the fact that my environment is highly competitive (being mostly tournaments), but if a list is not the strongest thing i can squeeze out of a codex, i don't play it. Why should you limit yourself to reasonably competitive lists, when you can build really competitive ones? I never understood self-imposed limitations, and i guess i never will. Because what you are suggesting is not a way to build a balanced list, it's a limitation. Pure and simple.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

How would build a list if you knew this was how the list were being built?
How do you build your Blind “Take on All Comers” List?

I like your idea, and use that basic philosophy when making my own lists. While not a hard and fast rule, taking something from every FOC slot lends itself to a balanced TAC list. It is worth considering that what battlefield role a units fills is often not the same as it's slot suggests. So when putting together a TAC list, you need to keep the jobs you need done first and foremost in your mind. As a Ultramarine player, I have the luxury of being able to swap weapons on a lot of different platforms to do what I need them to do. Not every codex can do that.

As for how I make my blind TAC lists (which is every list I build)

Start with core HQ+2xTroops
Add units I want to use
Add units to fill the roles not covered with the fun stuff.

There is a sort of tiered internal checklist that I tick off as I'm building.

Tier 1, not optional: Does this list conform to the rules?
Tier 2, optional, but strongly encouraged: Is this a viable list? Do I have ways of dealing with flyers/heavy armor/hordes/etc?
Tier 3, Things I like, but aren't required. Do I have something from ever FOC slot? Fresh paint on the table? Units I've not fielded in a while? Some new trick?

While 3rd in priority, third tier stuff often drives what goes in my list. The issue is that I generally have more stuff in that bracket then I have points in my list, so some gets set aside for the next game. I would like to include as much tier 3 stuff as I can, I should have tier 2 covered, and I must follow tier 1.

I tend to Take the Units I Want before the Units I Need after fulfilling the Core, but that has more to do with I prefer “Fluff/Fun List” above “Competitive List” most of the time.
The great thing about this List Building Style is more often than not I get a reasonably “Competitive list”.

 Gandohar wrote:
I am in favour of this type of list building restrictions for local clubs. Unfortunately there are far too many WAAC players who turn up to my local game nights with top tier tournament forces and try to table you in first 2 turns. Anything that pushes for a more balanced approach for army lists rather than a WAAC mentality is good in my eyes.

 Nevelon wrote:
You'll note that the order I build lists is not the same as which of my tiers is more important. My rough draft lists are full of fun and pure preference. But when refining a list, I err on the side of covering all my bases and building a TAC list. And sometimes that means that stuff gets trimmed. I might want to field my new Cassius conversion, in my LR (which is getting dusty and wants to see combat again) as well as experiment with a hurricane bolter ironclad walking across the table, but points are tight, so one gets left behind. I'm too much of a gamer to bring something dysfunctional to the table.

 Anpu42 wrote:
I have found this List Etiquette/Style to be FUN for me and my group find it FUN and I was hoping others would find it FUN, what is so hard about that is it to understand.

Teschio wrote:

Furthermore, you tend to forget the real problem here: these restrictions don't affect all armies in the same way, they cripple some and leave others unscathed. With Tau, for example, one of the list i use (which i think it's quite competitive) fits this restrictions perfectly. Which means that if versus a regular list i table it in 5 turns, versus a list crippled by these limitation it will take me 4 or even 3 turn to do it. This limitations don't reduce the gap, they increase it.

MarkCron wrote:
I don't think the OP is suggesting that you would "cripple" your list. Rather that you select a different combination of units in order to promote some variety in the meta.

Teschio wrote:
I guess we have different ideas about what the word "balanced" means....i think a balanced list is a list that can face different enemies and be effective versus them. Sometimes this means a spam list, sometimes it doesn't. One thing is sure, "balance" and "variety" are two completely different things.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

I never said that variety means unbalance. Your list seems quite competitive (though i would change some things, for example removing speeders in favor of more Longfangs and PAs), and it has a lot of different units. What is not true is the opposite: a list with lots of diversity isn't necessarily balanced. There are a lot of people that think diversity equals balance, and while this may be true for some armies, it's horribly false for others.

Teschio wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Not Necessarily
Take a look at the list I posted.
I have my Rune Priest and Long Fangs to deal with most things from Swarms to Armor
The Grey Hunters can hold take and/or take objectives, they also can deal with everything from Hordes to Armor.
I got the Land Speeders that work is the same way as the Long Fangs, but Mobile [Yes I know AV14 could be an issue, but that is what the Long Fangs are for]
The Lone Wolves both draw fire and can tie up Mobs or go after MC's, they can even deal with Armor.
The Wolf Guard do what they do best, add Killing Power.

Other than 4 Grey Hunter Packs there is a lot of Varity and flexability.

I never said that variety means unbalance. Your list seems quite competitive (though i would change some things, for example removing speeders in favor of more Longfangs and PAs), and it has a lot of different units. What is not true is the opposite: a list with lots of diversity isn't necessarily balanced. There are a lot of people that think diversity equals balance, and while this may be true for some armies, it's horribly false for others.

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, from what I have seen a list with lots of diversity is often unbalanced and lacks the necessary redundancy to ensure you end up with a good, fun game.

 Anpu42 wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Actually, from what I have seen a list with lots of diversity is often unbalanced and lacks the necessary redundancy to ensure you end up with a good, fun game.

Once more not necessarily, there is when both armies are using the same FOC we both have the same level “Redundancy”.

 Anpu42 wrote:
What’s so hard about believing that this works and we are having fun with it.

Teschio wrote:
What i want to stress is: don't call it a strategy, call it by its name: a limitation on composition. And don't claim it leads to balanced list, because it doesn't.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm going to a 1000pt tournament in August that enforces a "no doubles except of troops and dedicated transports" rule.

You jelly?

To be honest I wish it was "no triples" but I'll take what I can get.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm going to a 1000pt tournament in August that enforces a "no doubles except of troops and dedicated transports" rule.

You jelly?

To be honest I wish it was "no triples" but I'll take what I can get.