[Left of West]

Eh, sorta. An Armoured Company list can reasonably be expected to field nothing but Leman Russ tanks. With 6 feet of range on those battle cannons Battlecannons, they can actually play the whole game effectively with their backs against the edge of the board--making back armour shots actually impossible no matter how maneuverable the opponent.

But, really, it was just an example. The principle holds true against any army, basically.

Necrons are one of the notable exceptions to the rule of tank/infantry overloading, since every gun in the army works fairly well against both infantry and tanks. Still, you can overload against a Necron army, too. A Deathwing army, with lots of 2+ saves (against which the Necrons aren't so effective) is overloaded against a particular weakness of Necrons.

Ultimately, yes--overloading is always a form of tailoring, since not all armies respond the same to an overloaded army--some responding better and some responding worse. However, the metagame should never be overlooked. Every army, even the 'all comers' army presumes a certain metagame environment necessarily, and an army can be overloaded for advantage against any particular metagame environment.

That is, it is tailoring in a way, but that doesn't make it any less viable or important.

 

[kroxigor01]

While true, firewarriors are not that useless since a properly mechanized Tau list could get behind those tanks and give the firewarriors a shot at that lovely rear armor. Very few vehicles have RA above 11.

They are very useless. You need 120 points of FW and 85 points of DF to give them a chance of killing a 155 points tank, that's not point efficiency. Also, they are almost certainly going to die next turn due to a high concentration of pie plates around a unit that just disembark into a nice oval shape...

Some armies are better at overloading than others. For example, IG CAN load up on vehicles (3 leman russ tanks, 3 hell hounds, 6 chimeras). However, the fact that their transports aren't skimmers plays against them. A single penetrating hit automatically causes all embarked to pour out.

Yes, some armies can overload and others can't. I have a mechanised IG list and I must say, I don't care about my passengers as long as I kill all their AT before they kill all my tanks (which so far, has always happened). Its sometimes nice to have 2-3 infantry units left to claim objectives but a lone hellhound does the job just as well.

Non-transport, non-skimmer tanks are incredibly slow as well. They CAN move fairly well, but because of the need to fire most, if not all, of their weapons, they very rarely move very far. Vehicles like the short ranged hellhounds and Immolators will have to advance and will be able to be ignored for at least a turn by anti-tank fire.

I don't understand what your saying here. Yes they are slow, so? There killing 5 models a turn from 72' range. Hellhounds have 24' range which I do not consider short.

Vehicles are, of course, crippled by the fact that they don't need to be destroyed to be rendered inoperable for at least a turn. A successful glancing with guarantee that a vehicle will not be able to shoot at all. Also, many vehicles will lose most of their effectiveness with the loss of a single weapon (Exorcists with the launcher, speeders with the assault cannon, basilisk with its cannon, etc).

Good luck glancing 13 vehicles in one turn. The Necrons can (if they have 13 units within 24') but they are an exception.

All in all, I do like the thread, but it seems to me that it's just another facet of designing your list to specifically face another opponent. For example, an Armored Company wouldn't fight against Necrons nor would a skimmer heavy Eldar army (from my experience). Likewise, I doubt assault marine heavy armies would go toe to toe against Orks and Tyranids. You can try to abuse threat managements with the same list against multiple opponents and armies, but it just won't work a lot of times.

Necrons suck against Armoured Companies and Eldar Skimmer armies. They have no anti tank special weapons (apart from Heavy Destroyers who are expense, small in number and easily killed with a pie template or a rapid firing passenger veteran squad full of plasma) and have shot ranges, so they lose. I'd be far more scared of Tau then Necrons with my mechanised army. Why would Assault Marine armies not want to play Orks or Marines? Orks have S3 in the majority making them almost completely useless in combat against MEQs (and the Orks have pitiful Initiative which is a HUGE disadvantage in a 6 turn brawl). Tyranids would be slightly more scary, but they are scary to all combat armies (ever seen an Ork against Nid line up? Nids win 80% of the time).

You can try to abuse threat managements with the same list against multiple opponents and armies, but it just won't work a lot of times.

It works against all armies, I fail to see how getting more of one unit type then the enemy can deal with can be worse then neatly choosing just enough of each unit type to keep all your opponents unit well fed in targets but not drowned in them.

If you could find a unit that kills MEQs, TEQs, tanks, GEQs, skimmers etc with equal effect and made up your entire army from that unit you would nullify the advantage granted by my style of army list building. Unfortunately there is no such unit and even if it did exist it would cost to many points to be a viable choice.

 

[Lazyseer]

This is a great tactica and can be applied to most armies

Anouther army this could work for is Space Marines in drop pods. Because of the overload in deepstrike, enemies with long range guns will be wasting the points invested in the long range of those guns.

An overloaded army doesnt rely on any one one unit to achieve a goal. "Yes I killed a squad of genestealers, only 6 more squads to go. :ninja:

Also because all the units in the army will all be moving at almost the same speed they support eachother more easily then an army with some bikes, a havoc squad, terminators etc.

Good stuff

 

[Aun'la]

I think this tactica is great. But I've been thinking about it and I can't think of another threat that one would leave out of one's army besides Tanks/Armor. In other words, If I leave tanks out of my list then it makes my opponents anti-tank stuff less valuable/worthless; but what other "anti" squads are there? Is there anti-speed? Anti-elites? I guess I'm looking for more examples.

Thanks

 

[kroxigor01]

I think this tactica is great. But I've been thinking about it and I can't think of another threat that one would leave out of one's army besides Tanks/Armor. In other words, If I leave tanks out of my list then it makes my opponents anti-tank stuff less valuable/worthless; but what other "anti" squads are there? Is there anti-speed? Anti-elites? I guess I'm looking for more examples.

Thanks

You could leave out slow things ('slow' melee armies like foot slogging Orks will then not catch you), TEQs, Infantry (normally you keep some and stick them in transports or out of sight though) or light tanks (VERY different from heavy tanks). Some armies (particularly ranged armies) have 'counter assault' units which would of course be useless if you never assault.

@Lazyseer

Anouther army this could work for is Space Marines in drop pods. Because of the overload in deepstrike, enemies with long range guns will be wasting the points invested in the long range of those guns.

I never thought of that. Wasting points spent in a long range advantage by dropping right on their heads could easily be pulled off. Also note that in this army you will have [hopefully] overloaded their anti MEQ units, especially if you drop your units to kill these units before they get to react.

 

[Atma]

They are very useless. You need 120 points of FW and 85 points of DF to give them a chance of killing a 155 points tank, that's not point efficiency. Also, they are almost certainly going to die next turn due to a high concentration of pie plates around a unit that just disembark into a nice oval shape...

And you need ninety points of hormagaunts to kill a Marine, assuming the hormies get the charge, and the only way to make sure hormies decent killers are to increase their individual cost 20-50%. Points inefficiency is part of the game. Sometimes you just have to work with what you have.


Yes, some armies can overload and others can't. I have a mechanised IG list and I must say, I don't care about my passengers as long as I kill all their AT before they kill all my tanks (which so far, has always happened). Its sometimes nice to have 2-3 infantry units left to claim objectives but a lone hellhound does the job just as well.

Good luck glancing 13 vehicles in one turn. The Necrons can (if they have 13 units within 24') but they are an exception.

Well, if we're using guard as a comparison, we can use another 3rd edition army as comparison--remember the old Eldar codex? It's not impossible, especially if you're facing a gunlining army that will happily place its troops in cover all game. Or Dark Eldar, who can have 12 Dark Lances in their army. Granted, they don't have the best range, but most games aren't done on extremely large tables, where the Guard are at their best.

Necrons suck against Armoured Companies and Eldar Skimmer armies. They have no anti tank special weapons (apart from Heavy Destroyers who are expense, small in number and easily killed with a pie template or a rapid firing passenger veteran squad full of plasma) and have shot ranges, so they lose. I'd be far more scared of Tau then Necrons with my mechanised army. Why would Assault Marine armies not want to play Orks or Marines? Orks have S3 in the majority making them almost completely useless in combat against MEQs (and the Orks have pitiful Initiative which is a HUGE disadvantage in a 6 turn brawl). Tyranids would be slightly more scary, but they are scary to all combat armies (ever seen an Ork against Nid line up? Nids win 80% of the time).

You keep using your IG as an example. Necrons can be devastating against high-costing vehicle with Monolith deepstrike/teleporting and Lord VoD.

As for Assault Marines, I've never seen them--ever--been used against a 'close combat' army such as Orks or Tyranids (especially old Orks with the special choppa rules). After all, why would you want to run into the large ork boy squad with the hidden powerklaw Nob. Or, really, why would any Marine player ever want to advance when they can just shoot? Only against armies that shoot better than them but suck in CC (Necrons, Tau). Just for the record, DE Wyches and Harlequins pretty much laugh at any other CC specialist unit (Wyches especially).

It works against all armies, I fail to see how getting more of one unit type then the enemy can deal with can be worse then neatly choosing just enough of each unit type to keep all your opponents unit well fed in targets but not drowned in them.

By virtue of the FoC, you can almost never drown an enemy in one type of unit to overload them. You use Armored Company as an example, but the other player could simply refuse to play against that--after all, would you let a Tyranid player field carnifexes in the troops section and winged hive tyrants as FA?

Also, many weapons can 'double' as a different type of killers. For example, heavy bolters are great against light and medium infantry. However, in a pinch, they can be used decently against MEQs and even some MCs. Likewise, lascannons are anti-tank, but can just as easily shred bikes, MEQs, and MCs. It's not their purpose, but they can do it, and the law of averages, while cruel, does tend to help.

In fact, really, the only two types of 'overloading' you could probably do effectively are vehicles (since they're effectively immune to most forms of small fire) and terminator equivalents. Most vehicles can't be spammed, and most of the ones who can, like transports, aren't a huge threat (though if we're counting the IG again with their chimeras...). Terminators are expensive (an 80 point IST squad can take out a 5-man squad of termies), and most vehicles can be 'sectioned' off by long range fire--rhinos won't help you if your predators, landraiders, then landspeeders are wiped out...

If you could find a unit that kills MEQs, TEQs, tanks, GEQs, skimmers etc with equal effect

You mean assault cannons?

At any rate, your unit selections are there for a reason. Threat overloading only works because some armies can't adequately deal with it because of their age or concept. Taking advantage of this concept is listhammering, plain and simple, despite its fancy names.

Lastly, if your battle tactics revolve around sitting in your corner or table edge and shooting to death armies that have short ranged weapons that FORCE them to come to you, your choices are already simple. Likewise, if two gunlining armies fight each other, their army choices become fairly irrelevant as well--the game goes to the one with the most luck and the most high strength, long range weaponry.

After a certain point, if all you do is listhammer, sit in your deployment zone, your movement phases take less than thirty seconds, and your greatest tactical choice is what to wash away with massive amounts of firepower first, then you might as well stop playing, because all you care about is winning. ANd, really, playing against people who only want to win is not fun at all.

 

[kroxigor01]

Sometimes you just have to work with what you have

But 'working with what you have' is inefficient. Would you prefer to fire a Lascannon at a tank or at an infantrymen? I know lascannons WILL be taken against me though so I won't get any tanks for them to shoot at, or I could get 11 tanks so you don't have enough Lascannons.

Well, if we're using guard as a comparison, we can use another 3rd edition army as comparison--remember the old Eldar codex? It's not impossible, especially if you're facing a gunlining army that will happily place its troops in cover all game. Or Dark Eldar, who can have 12 Dark Lances in their army. Granted, they don't have the best range, but most games aren't done on extremely large tables, where the Guard are at their best.

MOST armies cannot stop 13 vehicles. It is very easy to get into a situation where you have more tanks then their are anti tank weapons when you get so many tanks which generally leaves you with 5+ tanks left at turn 5 when the enemy no longer have and anti tank capability.

You keep using your IG as an example. Necrons can be devastating against high-costing vehicle with Monolith deepstrike/teleporting and Lord VoD.

Great, so with a 250 point Monolith or 150 point (unsure of this cost) Lord you can kill one tank. Well done. Next turn I drop a pie plate on the unit that you just grouped in a huddle. That is IF you actually fielded either unit.

By virtue of the FoC, you can almost never drown an enemy in one type of unit to overload them. You use Armored Company as an example, but the other player could simply refuse to play against that--after all, would you let a Tyranid player field carnifexes in the troops section and winged hive tyrants as FA?

But if you can overload it is generally a good idea. Overloading in friendly game is generally not a good idea though as its not fun.

Also, no one said you can't use tactics and make your list better then the opponents at the same time.

 

[General Thaddeus]

Well, you are right about one thing, overloading isn't fun! As the name implies, you get an insane amount of "something" in your army while fulfilling the minimum requirement in everything else. That would be a terrible list to play in my opinion because it is so cheap and yet in so simple a concept, albeit a concept than 99 percent of gamers instinctively don't use because they want to have fun, win, and not beat down the other player while laughing maniacally... (an armored company guy at my shop did).

Cheers:happy:

 

[N1AK]

I know this Tactica isn't exactly fresh, but I think the topic is one that will remain valid and important for as long as Wargaming exists

Overloading is valid and effective way of designing an army, and although all the counter-points regarding dealing with these armies using more balanced lists are important I don't think they remove the point of Overloading (specialised lists).

One thing I think will be interesting is seeing how 5th Ed effects these kinds of army. Many of the traditional single aspect lists will have to adapt, some won't be valid anymore (Nidzilla will go through some major changes).


Personally I tend to design my all comers lists with more anti-tank capability than I should need. I know this gives me a efficiency hit against armies with few tanks or Monsters but at least high strength weapons can still hurt troops.
Although I field a number of multi-purpose units, at least half of my armies tend to be specialised to specific roles, again certain opposition lists will make some of these redundant but rarely is their nothing they can be used for.

 

[DoctorDogmeat]

I like to have my units as flexible yet hard hitting as possibly but the expensive is that they are weaker and tend to be outnumbered.

Main thing is to play nicely not upset anyone. If your using a nasty list don't be nasty yourself.

 

[karantalsis]

. Ahhg my PC keeps double posting!

 

[karantalsis]

If you could find a unit that kills MEQs, TEQs, tanks, GEQs, skimmers etc .

DE raider/warrior squads?

I find that my lists tend to be troop heavy (in 1500), but that almost every squad can hit almost anything. All tanks? I have 15 Dark Matter weapons.

Power armour/other good armour infantry. Better than a power weapon in every squad.

Hordes? 8 Assault 4 guns, plus high init and WS for combat and plenty of attacks.

High toughness? Agonisers, plenty of em.

In short I've never found an overloaded list that made me feel like any of my upgrades were wasted, my anti tank guns are either free or cost <10 points, my anti horde cost <15, my awesome weapons for cc weapons <25.

Overloading can certainly work, but I've never faced an overloaded list that I didn't shatter in less than 5 turns with my all comers list.

Now thats not to say that overloaded lists are bad, just that they are a gamble, and a bigger one than most people realise.

 

[kroxigor01]

DE raider/warrior squads?

Have 10 wounds at T3. Not exactly hard to carry out the 'threshold reduction' tactic on. I do agree that DE are quite blessed at defeating Overloaded armies though.

ll tanks? I have 15 Dark Matter weapons.

But most of them are disintegrators aren't they (9 disintegrators, 4ish Dark lances and a few blasters? Not going to kill 3 Hammerheads and 6 Devilfish [for a change in example]).

Power armour/other good armour infantry. Better than a power weapon in every squad.

If they charge you. Not all marines are close combat orientated, and almost all of them have a gun that kills you on a 3+. Also, 6-8 Power Weapons versus 50-60 assault marines is still not a good match up.

Hordes? 8 Assault 4 guns, plus high init and WS for combat and plenty of attacks.

How on earth do you get 15 'Dark Matter weapons' in the same list as 8 Splinter Cannons (ergo, at least 4 warrior squad full of them). Also, Splinter Cannons are not that good, its just an Assault 4 Bolter! It will not bring 180 Ork Boyz to their little green knobbly knees. And you cannot out brawl Genestealers/gaunt or Ork Boyz because you have WS4 and I5, you still have T3 and a 5+ save! (not to mention the fact that you are also only S3) Particularly in 5th ed where defenders pile in before the fight, hordes will almost certainly cause more wounds then you.

High toughness? Agonisers, plenty of em.

Ain't gonna put a dent in 60 Plague Marines or 8 TMCs out of charge range.

Giving the enemy only one unit type to attack is ALWAYS* more efficient then getting 2 tanks (for their Lascannons to kill), 5 Terminators (so your opponent's Plasma guns have a good target), a skimmer or two (for Autocannons etc) and then a few infantry squads.

*Not applicable to underpowered or stupidly priced units.

 

[karantalsis]

Have 10 wounds at T3. Not exactly hard to carry out the 'threshold reduction' tactic on. I do agree that DE are quite blessed at defeating Overloaded armies though.

large number of untis makes a tank army have dificulty as they have to split fire, an infantry army weil be assaulted before they can carry out a threshold reduction tactic.

But most of them are disintegrators aren't they (9 disintegrators, 4ish Dark lances and a few blasters? Not going to kill 3 Hammerheads and 6 Devilfish [for a change in example]).

All dark lances or blasters actually. I don't have any disintegrators in my 1500 list.

If they charge you. Not all marines are close combat orientated, and almost all of them have a gun that kills you on a 3+. Also, 6-8 Power Weapons versus 50-60 assault marines is still not a good match up.

Actually in my army there are... 11 power weapons and only 2 are on ICs who can be singled out in combat. Add to that that I wil be chargng them, especially if they aren't cc oriented and theres no problem. 60 assault marines? In units of 10 I assume, yes? I don't only have the power weapons to deal witht hem theres also weight of attacks and the fact that I can shoot them and stay out of range of their assault then assault them when they are weaker. With 60 assault marines (and almost nothing else) in 1500 playing jog round the table isn't going to be a problem.

How on earth do you get 15 'Dark Matter weapons' in the same list as 8 Splinter Cannons (ergo, at least 4 warrior squad full of them).

Thats easy, 5 on raiders (lances), 6 in squads (blasters). 4 splinter cannons in ground squads, 2 in raider squads, 2 in the HQ.

Also, Splinter Cannons are not that good, its just an Assault 4 Bolter! It will not bring 180 Ork Boyz to their little green knobbly knees. And you cannot out brawl Genestealers/gaunt or Ork Boyz because you have WS4 and I5, you still have T3 and a 5+ save! (not to mention the fact that you are also only S3) Particularly in 5th ed where defenders pile in before the fight, hordes will almost certainly cause more wounds then you.

If you get into a mass brawl all at once without having been shot at all, not going to happen. I'll be picking what assaults occur when against pretty much any army and as for gaunts, yep you can pout brawl them (they ahve the same toughness and save and wll have been shot up). Boyz and stealers. Well, stealers are weak to your shooting and when they eventually get in combat are not as good as the HQs or wyches, so thats 4 squads you can happily deal with in CC, never had a problem with massive stealer armies either. Boyz are pretty tough, but it depends if they are just a mass of boyz, which will get shot up and then strategically assaulted or if they have other stuff (which I guess would be less following the overloading tactic) in which case they are tougher.

Ain't gonna put a dent in 60 Plague Marines or 8 TMCs out of charge range.

TMCs will go down to volleys of Dark Matter followed by and assault, as will plague marines for that. Toughness is irrelevant once in CC against my power weapons and in these cases they are all thats needed to take those units down, whilst using the other guys as ablative wounds. Also there is no out of charge range against a portal list, or rather if they are out of charge range they can't hurt me either as they'll be out of shooting range too.

Giving the enemy only one unit type to attack is ALWAYS* more efficient then getting 2 tanks (for their Lascannons to kill), 5 Terminators (so your opponent's Plasma guns have a good target), a skimmer or two (for Autocannons etc) and then a few infantry squads.

*Not applicable to underpowered or stupidly priced units.

No, it isn't. All tank or all assault marine armies are very easy for me to deal with. In fact most lists unbalanced in this way are. You are right most of the time, but this is in no way a truism at all times against all lists.

 

[boo]

I like the ideas brought up in this tactica, as i usualy go for this sort of army anyway

with my (choppa) speed freaks, i could outmanuver & kill most units with my mass shooting -> mass combat (flamer, 9 pistols, a big shoota & then 40 attacks giving either a 4+ or no save at I4, fun : D )

so for them i abused speed

with my DE wych cult, i abused speed & combat, nullifying most shooting, & most combat specialists

for DE hemonculus army, i over used 'immunity to small arms' units (talos & grotes) while the warriors hid at the back dark lancing things

and now i'm back to my orks... with my 204 gretchin 1000 point list, i outnumber everyone. due to numbers people try to shoot them, which is playing to my game, as they lose every single combat that isn't vs a single opponent, so i play a short range mass fire power game as not many things can survive that number of grot blastas (save T7+)


so the concepts are good, and you can design a fun list using them (see 204 grots)
but they will cause problems to people who haven't seen them before, but can also cause probelms for people who don't know how to create a list using them
(i may overload on grots, but i take assist units in the form of dual force fields)


... i kinda lost my point somewhere

anyway, if your playing for fun, make a fun list, if your playing to win, make a win list(but at least inform your opponet if your playing to win, just in case they... aren't as much)

 

[jaybird]

couldn't marine tacticals be considered that versatile? 10 marines, combat squadded with lascannon, flamer, and combi-flamer/powerfist sergeant, with tl-lascannon razorback. admittedly expensive at around 250 points (i think), but really not that bad...

 

[Indigo]

I've been reading this article with some interest, as it was playing against a succession of "polarised" armies week in week out that actually led to me quitting the game. Although the whole topic ultimately boils down to a "winning versus having fun" question, in that highly specialised army design is essentially list-limit exploitation and powergaming (where powergaming is defined as stretching rules for the sake of winning). Nothing was more boring for me than playing armies stacked with one particular troop type week in/week out (except perhaps painting 50,000pts of Ultramarines ) and ultimately led to me quitting the game for a few years.

However, when does army design become classified as list manipulation? I ask this because my current project is a Death Guard army. At the points cap I've set myself I will have one dreadnought, a Daemon Prince, and a *lot* of infantry. I've not designed my army to win games or around fluff, and nor have I deliberately chosen to over-emphasise troops - I've simply picked the models I like which has led to a predominately infantry force. This is "abusing army threat management" in the classic sense of the term, although entirely unintentional, and definitely not for the purpose of winning games. Yet when I do finally get this force onto the tabletop, someone could look at the army and argue it was essentially list exploitation. I could argue all I want against it, but it ultimately would be.

At the end of the day, the whole argument will boil down to the age old question of winning over having fun, and you have to ask yourself what your motivation is when making an army list and indeed playing the game full stop if winning is the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[General Thaddeus]

I definitely agree Indigo.

It is just up to each player's own preference on whether they like to always win or to sometimes lose. I would say that if you always overload you will not be liked at your local store, though you could still have fun (i am almost always happiest when I win:dance, just if you overload you will have to at least make an extra effort not to be unsportsman-like about it to avoid being considered an @$$.

CHEERS!!!

 

[kroxigor01]

At the end of the day, the whole argument will boil down to the age old question of winning over having fun, and you have to ask yourself what your motivation is when making an army list and indeed playing the game full stop if winning is the be-all-and-end-all.

So your saying (or at least implying) handy-capping myself with a list I know is inferior will bring more fun? Not likely at a tournament. Or a League. Or a game against someone mildly competent and who likes to gloat. In those cases using a worse list would DIMINISH your enjoyment.

I do agree that in the case of casual games and 'fluff' games that being a tactical cut throat would decrease both players enjoyment though.

 

[Indigo]

So your saying (or at least implying) handy-capping myself with a list I know is inferior will bring more fun? Not likely at a tournament. Or a League. Or a game against someone mildly competent and who likes to gloat. In those cases using a worse list would DIMINISH your enjoyment.

Again, it depends on what you want from the game. From the way you've phrased your reply and highlighted certain words it sounds like you fall into the school of "winning is more fun than playing" school.

Some examples of where I am coming from -

A friend took the best painted Tyranid army I've ever seen to multiple tournaments and in every event finished middle-to-bottom table. He got his enjoyment from the painting and fielded troops that he liked the look of (something akin to my view, although I don't intentionally gimp my force where I can avoid it). Games were fun, but 2nd to the modelling aspect.

Another example are the people who take Goblins or Halflings to Blood Bowl tournaments. They are at a phenomenal disadvantage and realistically will never win, or even come close to winning. Hell, winning a GAME is an achievement in that case. But they have fun, not because they NEED to win - of course we all WANT to, that's why we play/compete - but because the game itself is where the enjoyment comes from.

So yes, you can either choose a list that intentionally puts you at a disadvantage for fluff reasons, or even just to present a tactical challenge, and still have more fun playing knowing that although you are likely to lose; the game will be more interesting than having massively tailored armies. Games with a bit of character are intrinsically more fun than watching powergamers roll a bucket of dice each and counting who has rolled the more 4+. I'd argue that those people who say only winning is fun or there is nothing wrong with choosing a massively polarised army (I'm looking at you IG mechanised army) for the sake of winning are powergamers plain and simple, and I'd rather not have anything to do with them tbh.

I do agree that in the case of casual games and 'fluff' games that being a tactical cut throat would decrease both players enjoyment though.

It certainly decreases your opponents enjoyment, and since we all rely on opponents to actually play the game, I'd rather myself & my opponent discarded all deliberate attempts to win, picked forces we simply liked to use, then play a game. Fluff doesn't need to come into it, although it can help.

Remember this nothing to do with being a tactical cut throat, or implying that if you want to win that is somehow wrong - it's not, wanting to win is perfectly normal and acceptable. It's wanting to win at all costs inlcuding by ways, means & attitudes that are considered to not be in the spirit of the game (i.e. list abuse, rules lawyering/quibbling) where you will find you will lose friends/opponents and get a reputation for powergaming.