Competetive List Building

[Captain Idaho]

I was torn between high jacking a thread about spamming or alpha strikes or stealing a set of topics from another member of the forum (sorry brother Tual) and I chose not to derail threads in the ned and start afresh.

 

So basically I came up with this in another thread (about Landraiders being essential or not):

 

Does this create another problem though? This could be better suited to another new discussion (or the competetive list thread), but reducing the variables essentially means you are reducing your chances of catching an opponent out in the list building.

 

When you think about it, if everyone reduces the variables in their armylist, then the game essentially boils down to paper-rock-scissors. I think we need to review this more in depth!

 

It got me thinking. Wargamers seem to be split between those who embrace a few variables in their lists and those who want to reduce them to the minimum.

 

Of course, in a game that relies on a cubic random numerical generator to establish the out come of your actions, it is understandable to have a desire to reduce the amount of chance that will determine who wins or loses.

 

But there in lies a problem, what happens if you reduce all the variables in a game? The game becomes predictable, and more importantly, you become predictable as your actions will be almost predetermined. What happens if luck does go against you despite stacking the odds in your favour?

 

What I am saying is I believe wargamers quite often go too far with stacking things in their favour, creating a rock-paper-scissors match up with players who have likewise done the same. Their lists become predictable and therefore are countered by specific things in other lists. If bad luck rears it's all too frequent head and puts you behind at the begining of the game, the game is lost without the ability to increase your potential.

 

There are units in the game that are deemed to unpredictable to be worthwhile, or combinations that play to a particular style to the exclusion of all else, which seem to influence what is deemed a successful list in 40K.

 

The absolutes I talked of are the armies designed to do their thing well, maybe even the best, but at the expence of variance, being predictable and inflexible. It is a policy of minimising what is considered a risky choice or behaving in what is a risky way. A risky choice could be one that has great offensive output but might not be that survivable or mobile, whilst a risky behaviour could be deep striking Jump Packer late in the game.

 

Explaining what I mean by variables, this is not just Chaos Dreads and their ilk, but also our lists having the more underused units and vehicles in them, which can do things that are unexpected (instead of just rushing forward in a Landraider with a unit of Assault Terminators). Units are often considered poor because they don't perform well in the "optimum list" build along side Vulkan and his mates, but I believe it is more a matter of using them correctly in the right army, in the right way.

 

I believe that the secret to building a successful list in modern day 40K, particularly from 5th edition Codex books, is to have a focus of what you want to achieve on the table top, but having back up incase you can't do that. If bad luck means your Landraider with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield Terminators dies to a single Lascannon first turn, what are you going to do? If the opponent puts his entire list into reserve or it's Dawn Of War, and your Drop pod Kantor list is going 1st, what are you going to do? If you bring to the table your Vulkan list replete with lots of Melta and flamers and your opponent is an Eldar Mechanised list, how are going to bring them to task?

 

If we build our lists to emphasise a single play style, we may very well have the edge in many games but are at the mecry of the "meta game" and Codex books that do that play style better. However, if we build our list with a capacity that does not rely on only a single method of play, even if a heavy slant towards that style, we can do better against armies that might otherwise be the rocks to our scissors.

[greatcrusade08]

ill add a long reply when im next on, for now ill link my article on reducing luck as a factor with regards to tenth company metagaming.

 

shameless self promotion... linkage

[DerekLee688]

Not everyone builds their lists the same. I try to include as many non-specalist units as I can: tac squads, typhoons, vindi's, etc...

 

I assume the rock paper scissors senario is created by too many specalists units in the army or over relying on a gimmic such as "alpha strike", unit spam, weapon spam, drop pod assault, or special character rules.

[muadib02]

I generally play that rolling dice can never hurt. Max plasma, max power armour, and max MOTW for my armies...oh and Njal

[Captain Idaho]

Not everyone builds their lists the same. I try to include as many non-specalist units as I can: tac squads, typhoons, vindi's, etc...

 

I assume the rock paper scissors senario is created by too many specalists units in the army or over relying on a gimmic such as "alpha strike", unit spam, weapon spam, drop pod assault, or special character rules.

 

Partly in units with specific focus, but also army lists as a whole that can only achieve certain results. The most relevant example is the Vulkan Assault Terminator lists, which have units that might not be considered specialists but are utilised and equipped in ways that are limiting. All those Melta and Flamer weaponary are limited in their useage and the army lacks long range punch and often relies on suicide units to hurt things at a distance etc.

 

I suppose that is what you meant by special character rules reliance?

[DerekLee688]

Considering hammernators can only assault I'd consider them CC specalists, but Vulcan/hammernator/Landraider/melta lists kinda cover every example I gave for limiting options. That's just because of how Vulcan's rules touch just about every offensive aspect of the army. How do you get TH? Termies. How do they get arround? Land Raider. etc.

 

Meta game can make or break this list though. I'd try it if I were stuck with nothing but MEQ players, in a non-tourny setting. Rock paper sicssors only works for me if I got paper in a scissorsless environment.

 

However, with every new codex armies get new ways to defeat once powerful themes or they are done away with in the newer codex altogether. This is what makes Rock paper sicssors so unrelyable, each is made more powerful but not at the same time or in a uniform way.

[spartan249]

You're starting to sound like you actually understand what warfare is all about. Murphy's Law is always in effect, after all. The difference between a soldier who's alive and one who's dead is planning and forethought with some good fortune sprinkled in.

[Captain Idaho]

However, with every new codex armies get new ways to defeat once powerful themes or they are done away with in the newer codex altogether. This is what makes Rock paper sicssors so unrelyable, each is made more powerful but not at the same time or in a uniform way.

 

Exactly. A more balanced approach would take away the chance of meeting a list that can out "meta" you.

 

Considering hammernators can only assault I'd consider them CC specalists, but Vulcan/hammernator/Landraider/melta lists kinda cover every example I gave for limiting options.

 

Except 3; long range firepower, variety of targets and numbers. ;)

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I like this idea! Thing is though, every unit in the codex seems to have a 'preferred' target (eg Melta weapon units are going to shoot tanks, Flamers shooting hoardes) so is more the ability to get units to multi task, fighting more than just 1 type of foe?

[Captain Idaho]

Rather than every unit being able to do everything, a core of specialised units granting you battlefield capacity in specific roles, with several units able to achieve multiple things, increasing your saturation within the list.

[greatcrusade08]

Rather than every unit being able to do everything, a core of specialised units granting you battlefield capacity in specific roles, with several units able to achieve multiple things, increasing your saturation within the list.

 

I agree, fleixibility per unit only gets you so far, speciailising some of your squads makes them far more effective at the job in hand and removes the luck factor.. i.e using plasma to take down mech..

what you really need is flexibility over the whole army

[Validar]

An insanily interresting discussion. I'd like to state that I havn't even played this for a year before I begin, so I'm by no means a veteran.

 

True as it may be that diversity and adaption to the battlefield will let your style become unpredictable and give you a headstart against an opponent geared up for fighting land raiders and assault terminators, there is another side to it.

While I agree that the game can boil down to simple rock-scissor-paper, where one list is autowin against some and autoloss against other lists of the same type, I think that there is a better argument for being a bit more versatile: The fun.

I don't like it when one can look at a list and be able to tell what it can beat and what it can't beat without even unpacking the minis, and that every marine list have its own land raider packed with assault terminators riding alongside 3 mm/hf land speeders along with Vulkan. When you play against something that simple isn't so standart/cookie-cutter you suddenly have a much more interresting game.

 

Yes you bring the power in the lists down, but you've also eliminated a lot of the predictable moves and playstyles out there. Maybe you're not using everything to its fullest potential, maybe you can optimize things a lot more than you do, but when you keep yourself from that you give yourself and your opponent room to use some of the less used and less optimal units and explore all the tactical aspects of the techmarine, thunderfire cannon, vanguard, command squad, legion of the damned etc.

And on top of this you're oppening a passage to the fluff. It'll actually be possible to create a fluffy non-salamander list! You'll be able to run your captain with that command squad that he is supposed to have as his bodyguard, and you'll be able to theme your army in accordance with the fluff without getting ripped to shreds every time you play.

 

I know this is another aspect than what was presented in the OP, but it remains within the theme of the thread.

The argument is simply tweaked a bit: Versatile choices may or may not give you a headstart when you play, I wouldn't know to be honest. But when you try out different stuff instead of the same best-buy (vulkan-assault terminator-mm/hf land speeder) units, you open up for a game with a lot more tactics, a lot more units to choose from and a lot more options when you're picking an army.

Perhaps it sets the power-level of the game down a bit, but I think it is worthy it, personally :)

[Ryjak]

The track of this thread is interesting, as I started another thread recently discussing this kind of stuff, but from a different perspective:

 

Building an SM Army with non-standard units

 

Reading both together might be helpful for you.