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 have been reading tons of posts on here about special units, odd tactics, discussion of the minutia of the rules. I have found that playing a balanced army seems to work best. I have seen lots of new players get rolled up and excited by the thought of say having 6 dreads, masses of terminators, god like librarians, and so on and so forth.
The truth in most of the games I have played or seen played is that a generals use of a more standardized army list with emphasis on "Taking ALL comers" wins most of the time. Sure there are plenty of stories about the tooled up command squad slaughtering the infidels is fun and exciting, the stories of the bolter squad that needed to charge the enemy to facilitate the overall battle plan and of course that bolters squad valiant victory over troops designed for hand to hand combat is much more exciting, IMHO.
While it is true that good use of specialized troops is needed, but they are "add-ons" not our meat and potatoes, once again IMHO.
Without going into a detailed army list (which is for another forum) my army is basically as follows..
Commander (solo), Dread, maybe termies (if over 1500 pt game), 4-6 troops (this includes 2 full scout squads and the reg marine squads each have a lascannon or missile launcher toting marine), transports (razors and rhinos, mostly no frills except of course the pintle mounted storm bolter), bikes/attack bikes, maybe assault squad (depends on game point limit), predator, HW squad.
I know not really specific, not big on special characters or special powers, EXCEPT for of course the fact that THEY are all SPACE MARINES!!! The biggest baddest standard troops out there. Sure my style of organization isn't glitzy or glamourous but it is like a hand cranking meat grinder... lol
In any case, I am curious as to the feelings of the other players out there on this liine of thinking. I know this post provides a wide range of replies but I say discussion leads to knowledge and knowledge to victory.
Looking forward to reading any common ideas or scathing "I THINK NOT'S!!!" out there.
Of course balanced armies work better most of the time. But while say, 8 MCs may not be overly effective, it is very fun. (The look on my friends face when he put down lots of horde-killers and I put down 6 Carnifexes and 2 Hive Tyrants... Priceless.)
I much prefer a general outlook as well ^_^
Balanced armies have a higher win ratio than all CC or all shooty armies due to being able to face all opponents equally well
Remember, balanced doesnt mean taking crappy and good units.. It means having a mix of mobility, assault and shooting capabilities which means you're going to be able to get those objectives easier
Exactly what i mean, the ability to "Do what needs doin" (In my best southern drawl).
I have a standard list but I adept it every time I play because every army is different and the opponents I play against have all a different style of play. ofcourse when you go to take part in a competition it's better to have an allround list but you still need to exploit the pros of your army and try to hide the cons of your army. if you play every time with a slight different army you are better able to make an tourney armylist because everyone has an other point of view of what is balanced. this is due to the fact that everyone has a different playing style.
DonÂ´t mess with the dicegod
I admit, balanced armies do, in the end, take the win.
But I'd rather play a fun army, with oddball tactics, making it harder and more enjoyable for me to win. ^_^
Balanced is for winners. Oddball is for people who don't need to technically win, to still win.
Well I am not sure about the beginners thing, although I have only been playing for 15 years so in some circles I guess that would qualify. I do save my oddball tactics for my Ork horde.
Only the number of years spent actively playing third edition and then time spent learning the changes in 4th really matter heh.. Anyway all im saying is that a lot of people say they've played 40k for a long time, but if the experience is in 1st and 2nd edition you might as well be a beginner because the game is completely different
Best advice I can give is to dont make gimmick armies and expect to win all the time.. Fun armies are fine, long as you don't have lofty expectations
Suppose it comes down to why you play. Personally, I'd prefer to take a fun army than a balanced one.
Also, balanced armies can get a bit *YAWN* after a while, and maxing out with the cool, flashy items in your army list is great fun.