[Warlock in Training]

Is anyone else sick of Codexes that were Nerfed, Oversimplified, or never getting a proper update with something as simple a easy as a PDF (looking at you BA Players, before your recent dex). Codexes that are so piss poor in 5th that only vary narrow range of units that work in any list.

CSMs for example has options for vary list for fun. But to win at all period you have to go for DPs, Cult Troops, and Oblits. You could use Vindis, Sorcerors, Termies, Chosen, Defilers, CSMs to some effect as well. Everything else is a bust. Narrow Minded and lack of Options.

DE are worst. DE Lord, Wyches, Raider Sqauds, and Ravagers. You could use Talos, but no way to deploy them effectivly. Reavers are also a chancy option at running away at a high point cost. Everything else is garbage.

Is this a product of GW piss poor updating habits? I mean they could update BAs for 4th via PDF, update DE to some degree with their lower pts cost and addition of Wych Lords, but other neglected Dexes cant be?

Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem.

Please fell free to list other armies you might think are broken. Hell Post Lists that you claim can work without falling into the same Copy and Paste Lists that overflow the Army List section.

 

[Stella Cadente]

Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem.

thats pretty much what I see all the time, if someone posts a list these days all effort is made to make that list the same as everyone elses, and if you take choices YOU want, then your just treated like some moronic sub-human

 

[El Mariachi]

Yeah this does seem to be the prevailing attitude. It was probably worse around 4th edition when the game was really catered towards tournament play- something I personally abhor. Thankfully though, recently there's slowly been a trend towards people choosing the units they like for 'fluff' reasons or because they just like the models. It makes for much more entertaining games (in this poster's humble opinion), especially with fun narrative campaign style missions where the games become a form of immersive escapism as opposed to a WAAC yawn-fest.

 

[darklove]

GW do seem to want everyone to use the same types of lists though. They do this by only making certain combinations viable. It feels as if 40k is dumbing down with every new codex.

 

[Warlock in Training]

What does WAAC stand for, Ive been seeing it alot latley and have never seen this before.

 

[Calamari]

However many builds you might get in a codex there will nearly always be a "best" one and forums are partly to blame for spreading said list.

When I look in the army list section I see people say "take xyz and win" like everyone else. What seems to be forgotten is that some one will post up a list and say "make this competitive".

I'm not really sure what my point is but maybe people are asking the wrong questions?

But it's late and this could all be coming out if my arse.

 

[Warlock in Training]

However many builds you might get in a codex there will nearly always be a "best" one and forums are partly to blame for spreading said list.

When I look in the army list section I see people say "take xyz and win" like everyone else. What seems to be forgotten is that some one will post up a list and say "make this competitive".

I'm not really sure what my point is but maybe people are asking the wrong questions?

But it's late and this could all be coming out if my arse.

Umm... i think Im getting what your saying... on the safe side get some sleep and try again tomorrow. :wink:

 

[Ravingbantha]

That's how I felt about the game since 3rd edition came out. 2nd edition really had alot of different things going on and then it was completly dumbed down. Even now the game is still a shadow of what it once was.

 

[Iron Angel]

Poor, poor Necrons with their 15 destroyer list...

 

[Kirby]

Older books suffer from this inbeing mono-builds, not the new books. GW can't produce 16 new books at once and expect them to have the same quality they have now, so wait and be patient.

 

[genesis108]

I kind of get annoyed with people using C&P army lists. I dont really post anything up in the List section for that reason. I am going to field what I want to field..usually its going to coincide with fluff and the army's battle doctrine(Deep Strike/Fast attack/Assault for BA). I might, once in a while, venture outside the doctrine for a little variety in play...but usually it's going to be the same list..and its going to annoy people. I get tired of hearing from people "Combat squadding is dumb!" Guess what..I do it with Tacticals for the fact that I can leave a combat squad with a heavy back and shoot..while the sarge and special weapon move around and help support where needed. Tactically sound...most people say no because I only have 4 ablative wounds for my heavy weapon..but having 9 guys sit in 1 place for 1 heavy weapon to shoot isnt very tactically sound either unless they are holding an objective. So I slog my Flamer and Sarge around and support where I can with them while my ML pops shots at anything he can see.

People say that that idea is dumb..stupid..whatever. It's worked for me. Is it "competitively sound" doing that..? No..but I don't give a damn about competitive play. I will play in tourneys but Im not going to change my list much or go against my army's main combat style just to win...to me, that is just retarded.

So..yeah, C&P lists and crap annoy the hell out of me because people don't think for themselves anymore..it's all about "what is the best to bring and what wins tournaments"...so why play a game that requires SOME level of thought if you aren't going to think for yourself..?

 

[Stella Cadente]

but I don't give a damn about competitive play.

*long shocked intake of breath* shhhh, don't say that, otherwise you'll awaken the sleeping beasts and we'll never hear the end of it.

 

[KingOfCheese]

I thought combat squadding WAS effective???

 

[High_Seraph]

seriously what does waac mean? im as confused as warlok.

 

[Katie Drake]

CSMs for example has options for vary list for fun. But to win at all period you have to go for DPs, Cult Troops, and Oblits. You could use Vindis, Sorcerors, Termies, Chosen, Defilers, CSMs to some effect as well. Everything else is a bust. Narrow Minded and lack of Options.

This is the sign of crappy Codex writing - there's literally one viable build in a Codex that isn't even that old (it was released toward the end of 4th edition, most certainly with 5th in mind).

DE are worst. DE Lord, Wyches, Raider Sqauds, and Ravagers. You could use Talos, but no way to deploy them effectivly. Reavers are also a chancy option at running away at a high point cost. Everything else is garbage.

To be honest, what do you really expect from a Codex that's two editions out of date? It's a miracle that it still functions at all let alone functions with a viable build for competitive play.

Is this a product of GW piss poor updating habits? I mean they could update BAs for 4th via PDF, update DE to some degree with their lower pts cost and addition of Wych Lords, but other neglected Dexes cant be?

Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem.

In part, yes, it has to do with Games Workshop not staying on top of their Codex updates as well as they should/could be. The other side of it in my opinion is that people don't follow the Army List forum rules.

You'll notice partway down that members are supposed to make it clear in the thread title what the list is intended to do. Is it intended for Grand Tournament play or casual/friendlies? Most people don't specify, so those of us that are looking to help people out with competitive lists don't know what's what before we open a thread. Once we do and see there's a ton of stuff "wrong" (and by that I mean a lot of sub-optimal choices) we try to help. Now, this isn't entirely the thread maker's fault as there are some (only some, not all) people that will continue to push their viewpoint on you even after you've made it clear that you're not interested in their ideas, which is wrong of them. But overall, I think if people made their intentions more clear there'd be less issues.

 

[KingOfCheese]

Basically, if you want to play a non-competitive list, then be prepared to lose 90% of the time.

Blame GW for their lack of balance within a Codex. Some units are a must in almost every list, other units people wouldn't even buy them if they were half price.
Whats even worse is that the units that are effective in this edition will be crap in 6th edition, forcing you to buy more models.

Regarding people posting lists on the forum....
If you post a list on the forum, then it should be assumed that its supposed to be a competitive list.
If its a friendly list and you have no intention of changing it, then why bother posting it? Dont waste your time posting the list, and most importantly dont waste other peoples time that are trying to help you if your not going to change it.
Who cares what some tourney-obsessed douche on the other side of the planet thinks. Just play the game and have fun if thats what makes you happy.
If your a complete noob, then fair enough. You might want some advice about basic stuff (like should Berzerkers be in a transport, or should i use a Trygon or Mawloc), but that is an understanding of basic tactics rather than list building.

 

[Hurricane]

I agree with Katie Drake here, it is primarily the responsibility of the person posting the list to clarify what they want as far as criticism goes. They should read the guidelines for posting lists fully before doing so.

On another note, the new codexes that have come out like IG, Tyranids, SW, BA, etc all have multiple good builds that can be both semi-competitive and fluffy. You don't have to field an army with sub-optimal units to have fun.

 

[solkan]

I don't think trying to find new and varied lists to use is going to be effective in general, because of the power span between GW's books. If you're tired of seeing the same builds over and over again there are only a few options open:

1. Use brain washing, mind control or just really good arguments to get a group of people together willing to play with adjusted or non-standard army books. Try out various strategies for fixing the Necron book, and try out various custom scenarios.

2. Use similar methods to #1 to get a group of people together who will play with non-optimized lists.

3. Play 40K the drinking game--the winner buys the beer/snacks/pizza/whatever for the loser.

Of the three options, I think #3 is probably the best bet, because free food is almost as good as winning, right? But if you're playing random pickup games at a local store, then I think you're going to have to fall back to mind control. :secret:

 

[Iron Angel]

Some units are a must in almost every list, other units people wouldn't even buy them if they were half price.
Whats even worse is that the units that are effective in this edition will be crap in 6th edition, forcing you to buy more models.

And thus their master plan is revealed...

 

[chromedog]

seriously what does waac mean? im as confused as warlok.

Win
At
All
Costs

They are the "enema" of the casual gamer.

Silly me. That's meant to be a 'y' there, not an 'a'.