3 Psyrifle Dreadnoughts

[Redbaron997]

So the question that must be faced is that in friendly play (It is my opinion that in competitive play anything legal goes) but for just playing with friends should we avoid taking 3 Psyrifles?

 

Arguments against:

Three of the same Heavy Support choices is kinda bland

It will be seen as abusing a good option

 

Aguments for:

We have been the underdogs for long enough

They are one of only a few beyond 24inch weapons

They are still just on a dreadnought which isnt that hard to take down. One good lascanon shot and its gone.

 

I would really say there is nothing wrong with it, but I understand that others will give you the stink eye.

 

(Note: This is not about whether you can do it, as obviously you can, but whether you should in a friendly enviorment)

[BrotherWasted]

Bland is not a reason not to use something, even in a friendly environment.

 

I happen to actually LIKE something that appears bland but crudely effective. Call me a minimalist. Stuff like 4 Psycannons in a squad, or rocking up 5 copy-pasted Razorbacks, I'm often into that kind of an army.

 

Sort of like a Tau army in a way, where nothing really stands out and everything works together.

 

Also, another argument for them:

 

They will take down most Lascannon sources with more efficiency than the Lascannon has at taking down the Dread itself. Razorbacks? Pen on 4+. DE Raider? Pen on 3+. Predators? You get more shots than it on the move. Land Radiers are tricky, but there's no reason you can't score a 5 here and there when you roll for your glancing hits, destroying the Lascannon in the process.

[Doomaflatchi]

It really depends on what "friendly" entails in your local meta. At my store, for example, "friendly" means "no duplicating any non-Troop, non-Transport choice".

 

Personally, I'd say that two is fine, but three is pushing it. Why not take two and a Dreadknight instead? Or, if you're really hurting for the range, a Vindicare? Either way, I wouldn't really complain if my opponent fielded three, unless it just started dominating the entire field - then, I'd politely ask him to tone it down next game. No biggie. :D

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Or you could all stop caring what the enemy does with his army, and instead look to your own army to counter it. Called 'tactics', works better than patronising your opponent by saying 'hey don't field that combo, I don't know how to kill it'.

 

All my friends play the army list they like, as do I. The only relevant point you should ever make to an opponent is 'hey thats not legal'. Even then, if people wanna field custom units they're created fan rules for (for example I once fought a Tech-Marine Dreadnought in an SM army, who kept repairing all the Dreads I disabled), I let them. Don't shut down people for trying certain builds, encourage yourself to be a better general by beating them anyway.

[Chengar Qordath]

Or you could all stop caring what the enemy does with his army, and instead look to your own army to counter it. Called 'tactics', works better than patronising your opponent by saying 'hey don't field that combo, I don't know how to kill it'.

 

All my friends play the army list they like, as do I. The only relevant point you should ever make to an opponent is 'hey thats not legal'. Even then, if people wanna field custom units they're created fan rules for (for example I once fought a Tech-Marine Dreadnought in an SM army, who kept repairing all the Dreads I disabled), I let them. Don't shut down people for trying certain builds, encourage yourself to be a better general by beating them anyway.

 

Yes, this. As long as the list is legal, your opponent has no real basis for complaining. If you can't beat their list, improve your own list and/or tactics; there's no such thing as an unbeatable instant-win list. Friendly games are about maintaining a friendly, casual attitude, not nerfing your list to match what someone else thinks you should field. I've had no respect for the concept of whining about cheesy armies ever since running into players who've complained that pure GK (under the old DH Codex) or Necrons were "Cheesy OP powergamer armies." The only consistent definition of cheese I've ever seen is "an army I don't know how to beat."

 

Also, I would think that spamming an entire slot choice always comes with a built-in downside of limiting your list's flexibility. Giving up Dreadknights and Land Raiders means your Dreads are likely to be prime targets for the enemy's AT firepower, and psyflemen won't do so well against AV 14, and are very vulnerable to tarpittig. That's not to mention that, like any primarily vehicle-hunting unit, the Psyfleman will be weaker against any list that doesn't have many vehicles; it's a mediocre choice at best against hordes (where a max of 4 kills per turn is minuscule) or MCs (whose armor saves can keep them alive).

[Doomaflatchi]

Or you could all stop caring what the enemy does with his army, and instead look to your own army to counter it. Called 'tactics', works better than patronising your opponent by saying 'hey don't field that combo, I don't know how to kill it'.

 

All my friends play the army list they like, as do I. The only relevant point you should ever make to an opponent is 'hey thats not legal'. Even then, if people wanna field custom units they're created fan rules for (for example I once fought a Tech-Marine Dreadnought in an SM army, who kept repairing all the Dreads I disabled), I let them. Don't shut down people for trying certain builds, encourage yourself to be a better general by beating them anyway.

While I understand your position, philosophically I can't agree with it completely from a 'friendly game' standpoint (at tournaments, however, I agree with what you said 100%). Being a two-player game, the purpose of the game is for the two players to come together and compete for fun. So, if you have a list that no one enjoys playing against, I feel that you are under some type of obligation to change that list, or risk having no opponents... which is no fun for you, either. Also, changing the way you play, what you play, and how you play it offers new opportunities and game experiences not only for you, but for your opponents as well!

 

That being said, I think the goal should be to help your opponent tweak his list to defeat your so-called "cheese". I think that promotes player growth, and opens up whole new options for what people can play and how they can play it. It improves the game for everyone involved. However, while I feel this is the 'best' route, it's not worth putting your hands on your hips and sternly declaring "I'll play what I want! It's a legal list!" That reduces the fun for everyone involved, including yourself, and leads nowhere. There is no personal growth, on either side, from obstinance. As in all things, the key is compromise. The Rulebook itself even states the the primary goal is FUN, not legality. To me, this is what makes it a "friendly game" instead of a "tournament".

[Something Wycked]

So, if you have a list that no one enjoys playing against, I feel that you are under some type of obligation to change that list, or risk having no opponents... which is no fun for you, either.

Right there. This is it for me. I've always played shooty Marines, and I've never run the same list twice. Some of my lists have completely dominated the game, and it wasn't any fun for me or my friend. I tucked a mental note in the back of my head that "this list was highly effective... If I ever go to a tourney, I might want to use that!" But for friendly games, amongst me and my friends, the story behind the battle is as important as what happens during the battle itself, so we always bring a fluffy list that doesn't stop us from being very competitive at the same time.

 

The one thing we can never quite reconcile is how many casualties both sides face :tu: ("Its going to take both of these chapters forever to recover from these losses!")

 

I really don't understand making a singular list. ("This is my 1500 point army, and they're the only models I own for this codex.") I know that people do it because its either the best army list they can come up with or its the fluffiest or what have you, but just running one thing over and over again would bore the hell out of me, overpowered or cheesy or not.

[Tybrus]

A game is a social contract between two players to enjoy and entertain each other. If 3 Psyriflemen is so effective, why not take 6 of them? 3 Ven and 3 normal? The answer is simple, you felt the need to ask, which means you feel badly for doing it. So like I tell my 4 year old, if you have to ask if its wrong, then you already know then answer...

 

But im just an old fart, and still believe in things like Honor, Integrity, and Respect

[Gentlemanloser]

there's no such thing as an unbeatable instant-win list

 

4th had the flying circus. That :) was lame. No stoping the Harlies, and they just rolled up units consolidating from one to another.

[Chengar Qordath]

That being said, I think the goal should be to help your opponent tweak his list to defeat your so-called "cheese". I think that promotes player growth, and opens up whole new options for what people can play and how they can play it. It improves the game for everyone involved.

Quite so; whenever I have a one-sided match (assuming it's not a case of the dice being one-sided), I always try to give my opponent a few pointers on what was wrong with their list/tactics, and point out one or two of my list's weaknesses.

 

When it comes to balancing your own list against what other people want to play, it really depends on who my opponent it and how they express their concerns. As a general rule, people who are rude and abrasive are much less likely to be accommodated. Then again, I change my list up a fair bit between games anyway, so I don't run into too many complaints about specific cheese lists.

[Wildfire]

A game is a social contract between two players to enjoy and entertain each other. If 3 Psyriflemen is so effective, why not take 6 of them? 3 Ven and 3 normal? The answer is simple, you felt the need to ask, which means you feel badly for doing it. So like I tell my 4 year old, if you have to ask if its wrong, then you already know then answer...

 

While I agree with you up to a point, I would like to say that bending over backwards to make a list someone else enjoys that you don't is also not a good solution. I've stopped playing people who like fluffy, whimsical lists because neither of us enjoyed our games. And trying to find middle ground left us unsatisfied as well. In that case, I say it's better to shake hands and agree to not play each other in the future. So if you like playing hard lists and skilled players, and someone is complaining about your lists, maybe it's time to find a new opponent(s).

 

And that's leaving aside whether 3 (or 6) psyflemen is a good points investment. It is very possible to have too much of a good thing in 40k.

[Tybrus]

A game is a social contract between two players to enjoy and entertain each other. If 3 Psyriflemen is so effective, why not take 6 of them? 3 Ven and 3 normal? The answer is simple, you felt the need to ask, which means you feel badly for doing it. So like I tell my 4 year old, if you have to ask if its wrong, then you already know then answer...

 

While I agree with you up to a point, I would like to say that bending over backwards to make a list someone else enjoys that you don't is also not a good solution. I've stopped playing people who like fluffy, whimsical lists because neither of us enjoyed our games. And trying to find middle ground left us unsatisfied as well. In that case, I say it's better to shake hands and agree to not play each other in the future. So if you like playing hard lists and skilled players, and someone is complaining about your lists, maybe it's time to find a new opponent(s).

 

And that's leaving aside whether 3 (or 6) psyflemen is a good points investment. It is very possible to have too much of a good thing in 40k.

 

 

I agree 100%, as I said its a contract for both people to have fun. I too have not played people when I don't enjoy the game after our first game. That can be for any number of reasons. I take it as far as to not play anyone under 16, but prefer someone at least 21+. I find that you can not get an agreed coherent thought is they are younger -sigh-.

 

As for the riflemen army, I think that the 6 supported by 10 man GKSS's squads could work just fine. The 24 Str 8 shots a turn with rerolls should work just fine. Hammers in the GKSS deal with any AV 14 armor and other then that you keep in cover for your dreds and pound them until there is only dust and whining...

[the jeske]

So, if you have a list that no one enjoys playing against, I feel that you are under some type of obligation to change that list, or risk having no opponents... which is no fun for you, either.

ah so you just make your own army worse , start losing , which makes your opponent happy[they win] , but your suddenly playing something that A you didnt want to play and B it loses . seems to kind of a suck IMO .

 

+ what is the problem with 6 str 8 autocanons ? SW can run 15 str 8 RL [ap3] chaos runs 6-9 oblits because they dont have any other support units . marines have more numerous options but they still run the same rifle man and/or MM attackbikes/speeders.

 

 

If my opponent cant build a working list , then it is his problem . If he is building an army around the like model>effectivness concept , then it is again his problem not mine . Now I would understand if something was realy unbalanced [FW rules for example. normal army has close to 0 chance to counter a flyer . mass lucius pods with a BA army with blood claws etc] , but no option in the dex we have right now , even the undercosted ones like IG skimers.

 

 

The answer is simple, you felt the need to ask, which means you feel badly for doing it.

nope . we dont do it because it is an inefficient use of elite slots. It is better to get a vindicar and a 5 man razor squad of puris with 2 psycanons then 2 venerable rifle dreads + to even start thinking about using those slots you would have to play more then 1500. EU plays 1500 mostly .

and if playing at 1750 or 2k points someone cant deal with 3 dreads...well then something is wrong with the way he build his list , because even necron could do it.

[Prathios]

I have this link in my signature for a reason! Everywhere I go I hope someone will click on it to see an incredibly time consuming and well crafted entry for this very topic. We spent ages in this message board coming up with them and Sunderheart put this together for topics exactly like this. Please click on the link down there, you'll be glad you did.

 

The name of the game is, play a list you know will be fun for you and your opponent. The very best game you could ever play is one where it came down to a single dice roll and a single unit. Beating your opponent and getting stronger is great if you're Goku and you need to power level to beat the next bad guy, but in a game where the rulebook states is meant for fun you need to play for that goal in a friendly environment. As long as you both have fun the game is being played "right."

 

Page 2 of the rulebook states, "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time." 40k is not a balanced game, and thus, is not built for a do or die mentality unless you're surrounded by others of like mindset. I would frown at a friend who took three of those to a game, but I would still play him. It might end up being exciting trying to take that force down, or I might have not taken a list that can properly deal with that kind of an unbalanced force. You might try it once, and see how your friends react. If you just beat down your opponent with them perhaps you should try 2 or 1 instead.

[Chengar Qordath]

I think a lot of it really boils down to how you and your opponent define having fun. I've always been fairly accepting of defeats; the one or two times I got seriously trounced, it made me want a re-match in a week or two once I'd had enough time to figure out what I did wrong. For me, losing is almost as much fun as winning, since it will often give me a chance to learn and grow as a player.

 

Of course, as I alluded to above, a lot of it depends on people's attitude coming into the game. If my opponent for a friendly game says "hey, I left my long-range AT guys at home, so could you go a little easy on me there?" then wouldn't mind tweaking my list to give him a fair shot. On the other hand, an opponent who starts complaining the instant he sees my models that *insert unit here* is a cheesy OP unit and anyone who uses one is a powergamer, then my response will be to ignore said opponent's concerns at best, and pack up and leave at worst. Some people like it when you tone down a list to keep the odds even, and others would rather lose to a strong list than win against a weak one (I consider myself in the latter category).

 

I suppose what it boils down to is, different people have different preferences, so a good player considers their opponent when making their list and deciding how they'll play. My general philosophy is to be friendly, but don't be afraid to win. I expect my opponents to have the maturity to accept a loss with good grace, and expect myself to do the same.

[BrotherWasted]

Except winning is what makes the game fun for me.

[Prathios]

Except winning is what makes the game fun for me.

 

Even if that comes at the expense of having people to play with? Or perhaps, even if winning was really easy? I enjoy winning a lot too, but when I play computer strategy games I don't put the difficulty on easy. It's more fun to win a challenging match.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

Today's 40k has two broad catergoris which are often at odds with each other.

 

1) the so-called "competitive" players who try to squeeze 110% effectiveness out of their lists. Fluff and background go out of the window as they try to min/max their armies for maximum benefits.

 

2) the so-called "fluff" players who try to build armies based around a certain theme, often remaining within the limits of pulished fluff. Examples include people who do codex lists always taking full 10 man squads (maybe combat squadding as the situation dictates). They play for the sheer joy of the game's background.

 

Neither philosophy is wrong, but they often clash as one side considers the other "unfun" while the other side of the coin sees people considering the fluffy armies as "sub-par".

[number6]

Today's 40k has two broad catergoris which are often at odds with each other.

 

1) the so-called "competitive" players who try to squeeze 110% effectiveness out of their lists. Fluff and background go out of the window as they try to min/max their armies for maximum benefits.

 

2) the so-called "fluff" players who try to build armies based around a certain theme, often remaining within the limits of pulished fluff. Examples include people who do codex lists always taking full 10 man squads (maybe combat squadding as the situation dictates). They play for the sheer joy of the game's background.

 

Neither philosophy is wrong, but they often clash as one side considers the other "unfun" while the other side of the coin sees people considering the fluffy armies as "sub-par".

Lots of interesting points made. <_< However, I take issue with what you stated here, BCK. The dichotomy you post is false. It does not exist. There is no gulf between playing "competitively" and playing a "fluffy" army, if for no other reason than what constitutes a "fluffy" army is entirely in the eye of the army's beholder.

 

And sometimes not even that. Most people cling to the belief that mechanized IG armies are just about the "best" -- and "cheesiest" -- army that can be put on tables today. Many such armies are "fluffed" to be Steel Legion. (I have a friend who plays exactly such a force and, in fact, won 'Ard Boyz with it and took 2nd place at Adeption with it.) GW itself has long and well-established that Steel Legion regiments are heavily -- sometimes even entirely -- mechanized. Well, if GW itself says that fully mechanized IG armies are fluffy, who are we to declare them "too competitive" or "cheesy"?

 

GW also practically demands that we players take ownership of our armies and develop fluff for them. Who are we to say whether 3 psyflemen dreadnoughts in a GK army isn't fluffy? Maybe it is for that particular player's vision of their GK strike force.

 

You cannot claim that there is a distinct difference between competitive armies and playstyles and fluffy armies and playstyles. Such a distinction does not and has never existed. Let's put this old chestnut to rest, shall we?

[Zhukov]

I don't think it matters:

 

If you ask the question if it's 'too much' for friendly play than you automaticly say that your oppenents aren't really good. You'll win with a less strong list then anyway, so basicly do what you want, wont make much of a difference.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Today's 40k has two broad catergoris which are often at odds with each other.

 

1) the so-called "competitive" players who try to squeeze 110% effectiveness out of their lists.

 

How do they get over 100%? Voodoo magic?

[TheMouth]

If my points would allow me to take 6, I would. If the game isnt a challenge how else will players advance?

 

I routinely played my friend with a 9 speeder list, and drop podding sternguard, I lost all the time...then I changed up my tactics, not my list...and I beat him routinely.

 

This game is about the fun, but its also about the challenge.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

Today's 40k has two broad catergoris which are often at odds with each other.

 

1) the so-called "competitive" players who try to squeeze 110% effectiveness out of their lists.

 

How do they get over 100%? Voodoo magic?

 

The power of the warp is limitless

[Stormshrug]

It's a bit cheesy, but it's not degenerate. Few people will complain if they know from the start what you're running, I suspect.

 

-Stormshrug

[Zagman]

Honestly, would I do it, no. I try not to field triples in any slot, though I now do at 2k and 2.5k for my GK army. And i'm ok doing because a lot of people find dreadkngihts and paladins inferior options. I personally find more balance non spam lists to be more fun to play with the exception of my DriagoWing army, its just awesome to field.

 

Would I play against it, yes.

 

My general rule is that I will field a competitive enough list to give me a solid chance at winning. There are a couple of opponents at my LGS where I won't field a "hard" army, if I did I would win almost every game I played against them and they wouldn't want to play against me(something that has already happened, I've since learned to tone things down to keep things fun for everyone). I enjoy winning a tough match requiring me to bring my A game. I'll field something that has all of the tools I will need to win, find fun, and will require good play to win. Against some of the more competitive players I will field tougher lists, though I still avoid spamming more than two of any one unit in most cases. Just personal preference.

 

You could always just field two, and the vindicare. That feels better to me, difficult to articulate, but better nonetheless. On the flip side, if you are playing tougher opponents and need an edge, bring em in full force.