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 seem to have a fairly odd way of picking armies, its not exactly planned as such it just happens but its fairly odd. Each of my 3 planned/partly made armies have exploited the weaknesses of one of my other armies and so a 40k version of Rock, Paper, Scissors has formed.
My 1st army was tau which is fairly near completetion is fairly weak againsy my Nids force or so it seems, they just cant seem to take out monstrous creatures that easily.
My 2nd army, tyranids are fairly weak against my planned Space Marines the whirlwhind really owns guants and genestealers thus quite a lot of the army and being virtually fully mechanised gives the tyranids a fairly tough nut to crack; the monstrous creatures do pose a certain risk but the vehicles outpace the 4 carnifexes and the speedy hivetyrant is hardpressed equipped with devourers to deal with the mech marines.
My Marines are weak against my Tau due to being mechanised when faced with the ammount of fairly high strength shooting although lacking a bit in low ap weapons the small number of marines make it less of an issue.
So I was wondering if anyone was like me and picked armies that could defeat each other whether knowingly or unkowingly, and the possible reasons for doing so.
Can’t say I have used that approach, although I do tend towards conflicting styles of play Eldar-IG.
For me it’s usually models, if I can be bothered to paint them chances are I will finish them, I have regular bouts of can’t be arsed with GW, but I tend to gravitate back towards the same armies, Eldar-IG. Next is back ground, IG humans, flesh and blood, trying to make do in a world gone to crap, Eldar the last bit of magic in a world gone to crap. Play style, IG guns, big guns, bang bang, nuff said, Eldar something fun about turning up to war dressed like Boy George (the Eldar not me) and leaving your opponent stone dead in five turns. Playability, how often am I going to run into other IG or Eldar armies? Alright fairly often, but not as often as if I played SM, CSM or Nids, or Tau.
That is also a very good point about playstyle I have seemingly chosen the full spectrum of playstyles. Tau very very shooty, Nids very very assualty, and my tank heavy SM tough and balanced.
I dont mind playing the popular armies but I always do something slightly unusula with them. Take the planned SM for instance, yeah marines are everywhere but how many have 6 tanks and a dread at 1500 points.
Maybe it's not the army, as has been said, but the composition. If that's the case, maybe your "problems" are just you discovering what your armies need to be more balanced and resilient.
For example, from what you've said, it looks like your marines are mechanized but light on bodies, your Tau have plenty of medium but lack high-strength weapons, and your nids have few to no deep-striking/infiltrating units to take out those pesky whirlwinds. If that's the case, it sounds like you need to drop a vehicle or two from your marine army to give them more targets (infantry) for the Tau to shoot at, preferably some high-speed infantry like assault marines to try to chase down crisis suits, etc. Your Tau can probably sacrifice one or two small/medium-strength weapons to get a squad of railheads or a hammerhead in there. The nids need something that can deep-strike on/near the whirlwinds, or a gunfex with a venom cannon and good line of sight. If nothing else, you'll stun the vehicle enough times to keep the plates off your gaunts.
But again, none of this means you've picked "bad" armies, just "bad" composition. A few changes here and there, and I'll bet your "problems" will disappear.
I don't have any problem with my armies beating each other up.
My tau beat the marines because they have a fair few high strength weapons they lack low ap weapons needed to take out fexes and sometimes those fast nids out pace the guns the winged hive tyrant decimates a line of anything the high strength weapons the carnifexes have instant kill the broad sieds or suits if there in los often. Otherwise they dont do to badly
I think my Tau need redoing a bit there the ones I didnt have a theme with which makes them suffer slightly.
My tyranids don't do well against the marines because nids lack antitank at long range. Only monstrous creatures provide it really. The whirlwhind is the best thing ever against every type of guant bacuase it can ignore cover and insta kill them.often it doesnt need many turns to do it and it can do so hiding out of los with good luck on scatters. im busy tweaking with my nids.
My mechanised marines dont do well against tau because tau are the ultimate vehicle killers. I have a few railguns to take out big things. Missile pods to take out most of the rest. I really dont want to change by planned marines at all. I love building vehicles. i have to few vehicles in my 1500 point list only 4 tanks 2 rhinos and a dreadnought.
What this thread was mainly about is finding out how others pick second of third armies, ive seemingly picked armies that can beat each other due to the compositions ive chosen and I dont plan to change that too drastically.
Well seeing as how I have one 40k army and one FB army I don't see how either could. But I must say it is intriguing how you ended up with armies that are such opposites!
I think the only thing I can see in common is relatively low model counts.
I think picking opposites is common in gaming. Take my armies for example, which is also fairly typical. I play Tau. I got a few thousand points of Nids for dead cheap because Tyranids are everything that Tau aren't: close combat, fast on foot, no vehicles and the weapons are relatively inferior. When you play with one style of army for quite some time you start to see the things that other armies can excel at. For example, for the longest time playing as Tau in 4ed, I desperately wanted a space marine army with 6 assault squads, sergeants with power fists and 2 plasma pistols per squad. Throw in a pair of chaplains at 2000 points and not only could I deepstrike onto my opponent's doorstep with 60+ CC MEQs, I could annihilate most squads in close combat and then consolidate into other squads. With 4ed's consolidations out of close combat, such an army could easily destroy a non-cc oriented army. I didn't want to be a consumer whore and buy Space Marines, though, so I went and got the "deadly close combat" army of the time: Tyranids. Lack of MEQ status still left me getting chewed up by firepower though, and I gained new insight and appreciation for my Tau. Now I play Tau with greater knowledge about tactics versus close combat, and I haven't lost a game in some time.
My gaming group's new motto: That army you're using is overpowered because it hurts my guys, codex is broken and needs a rewrite.
I think it's good to have armies like yours, as it allows you to see each of their weaknesses and adapt to them in a fight, be it through unit selection or tactics. It also allows you to see and experience each of the main army types available to most forces and can thus choose which army to use in a battle depending on what you feel most adept at using. Variety also keeps you interested in the hobby, which is never a bad thing (unless you're short on cash...).
well i'm not rich but cash isn't a problem really, EMA for the win.
You've made some good points I have 3 varied armies that even though they are all popular allow vast variation from the norm