Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was considering all the army lists that get tossed around for constructive critique. The thing about doing that is, if you notice, they often get funneled into being more like one of the "most effective" lists. The result is that you see a lot of lists that are much the same.
For example, I recently played a DE player who did need to work on his army composition (he had a 400 point HQ retinue in a 1500 point game), but he was doing two things that a lot of people advise against. He was using scourges with splinter cannons as a fast response/kill infantry choice and also disentigrators on his raiders, vice dark lances. I thought about it and both are neat bits of flavor for his army. They are not ineffective, just not "the most effective" as conventional wisdom holds.
I have a pretty big love of my Tyranid Warriors in my lists. Even at 1500 points, there were three broods of three each, well tailored for H2H. When my points go up, I start adding more Warriors to the broods. Also, I like to take them as fast attack choices. You might well see one brood of a single Ravener, but the other two slots are broods of winged Warriors. I don't know, I just like Warriors and have resisted every effort others have made to convince me to go with the three broods of lone Raveners or such.
So, what do you think? Does posting army lists for discussion lead to too many vanilla lists?
depends on what the person wants. many noobs ask becuase their model selection was based on fluff. i personally like trying new lists each time, becuase thats how you stumble across something novel.
also, they're asking what wins, and for the majority of people, the same thing wins, that is until somebody comes up with something new!
I thought you said they wouldn't charge us!
What I said was: I didn't think they would charge us and win. And I still believe that.
Then if they can't win, what are they doing charging us?
It's possible, I suppose, their commander disagrees with my assessment...
I think you could be right. I've decided not to post my witch hunter's list and just make it out of what I want and what I think is cool. Like you said, most things are not ineffective, just not as effective as the optimal choice, but you still have a fair chance of winning with an army that is balanced and with no massive errors.
So if I think Inquisitors are cool I'm going to have two of them + retinues, no matter what anyone says. They might not be the greatest choice for points efficiency but they are certainly not useless, and if the rest of my army is balanced I won't be massacred EVERY time (I hope).
Who would want to play against the same army every time, I mean really?
I think it depends on what army you play. Some armies have enough stuff to make a lot of different effective choices while other armies don't really have enough selection to mess around with.
Straight Imperial Guard (No allies) are one of those armies that most people will agree have a "most effective" set up and are difficult to win with any other way. If you don't take a lot of troops, then there's a good chance that you will get hosed by a good opponent. I also put Necrons in this list, since they just have so few things to choose from to start off with.
Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines, on the other hand, have a LOT of effective choices and can be built a lot of different ways without suffering too much. You can play them character heavy or character lite, you can play them troops heavy or troops lite. They are just very forgiving.
I personally have no qualms against breaking traditions and trying something new, even with my Imperial Guard, but it all depends on the setting. For a tournament setting I will always play with the units that I consider "most effective" rather than the ones that I consider characterful or fun.
I think it does lead to generic looking lists of 'most effective' units. People just want to know what works. They can either play 20 games and figure it out (if they are even marginally observant) or they can ask here. Then, once armed with the knowledge of what works they can decide how far from this mold they are comfotable going to start incorporatnig thier own character and flavour into thier army.
I don't think it's a bad thing to play your first couple of games with a min-maxed or power list. Chances are you will still lose, but it'll at least be close. You'll probably have a good time (by virtue of not feeling bad for getting creamed if nothing else) and come away with confidence to try something different.
That anyway is how it worked for me. Now that I've played a few games I keep a core 'effective' list and change up HQ or Elites, at least for my marines. I think I'll continue to play the vanilla DE list just because I love handing people thier asses with it.
War Record Since Sept 2005
Old Codex 48-20-9 Dark Eldar
New Codex 1-0-0 Dark Eldar
I just think that the non-power custom lists are fun and, very often, quite effective in games. I have been putting together an Eldar army and, despite the conventional wisdom, going for Dark Reapers in the list. They might get smashed some games, then the enemy has a clear shot at them, but other games they should be effective and a lot of fun.
I have been playing around with two lists. One is Ulthwe with two Falcons and one Dark Reaper squad as the heavy support. The other is Swordwind with two Dark Reaper squads in there. I really like mobility and firepower (why I usually play Tyranids, everything is an assault weapon), but the lure of having to choose a good deployment is also fun.
The games I see most interesting stuff from experienced gamers are match-ups where both slightly tailor their armies to go after the other one. That is when you start seeing squads that are not often brought to the field start to see some play.
As far as I'm concerned, all vanilla'd, min/max'd, most efficient/effective list just beg to be beaten, afterall, anything that lacks variation allows a pattern to be designed to destroy it. If everyone in a league, but one person, plays a min/max list, then that one person, might have exactly what is needed to render that min/max list useless.
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan