No challenge, it is too easy

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

When you sit down with your GKT and think "What will I do with these, how will I use them?". Points for Points, you get more out of using Strikes than you do GKT,...

 

And again I must ask, what other codex lets you get more out of Terminators than power armored troops? Does anyone run blocks of Termies with Space Wolves? Not really, and if they do it is a worse use of points than spamming Grey Hunters. Sure the Chaos codex sucks now meta-wise, but within it, is it a good use of points to take Terminators? No, not really. I don't need to keep going for you to see what I am getting at, right? If you are all about super-duper optimization then yes, you are right, Terminators are not great. But guess what? This is true almost everywhere in the game! Short of all terminator armies with special rules, when is using terminators 'optimized'? I can only think of one example, Ultramarine TH/SS squads, which at 40 points per model are a steal. That's it. Grey Knights probably have the second best Terminators in the game: grenades, spells to make them S5, count as troops with no special character needed, force weapon death rule, free 4++ or I6 or hammer (often at S10). And yet people complain about them.

[Gentlemanloser]

And again I must ask, what other codex lets you get more out of Terminators than power armored troops?

 

To be honest, I don't really care what the balance or state of other Codexes are.

 

Does anyone run blocks of Termies with Space Wolves? Not really, and if they do it is a worse use of points than spamming Grey Hunters. Sure the Chaos codex sucks now meta-wise, but within it, is it a good use of points to take Terminators? No, not really. I don't need to keep going for you to see what I am getting at, right? If you are all about super-duper optimization then yes, you are right, Terminators are not great. But guess what? This is true almost everywhere in the game! Short of all terminator armies with special rules, when is using terminators 'optimized'? I can only think of one example, Ultramarine TH/SS squads, which at 40 points per model are a steal. That's it.

 

Or maybe the new DA TH/SS temries. FnP FTW! ;)

 

Grey Knights probably have the second best Terminators in the game: grenades, spells to make them S5, count as troops with no special character needed, force weapon death rule, free 4++ or I6 or hammer (often at S10). And yet people complain about them.

 

Yes, they are awesome Terminators.

 

They're still sub par next to thier other Troop companions.

 

That Terminators are still rubbish, overall, in 40k is a sadness for me. I love the old metal GKT minis and think they are some of the best GW has ever produced. I used to run, and wanted to run, TDA only armies, and was overjoyed when the GK Dex had the option for this! GKT as Troops! Amazing!

 

It's just sheer frustration and sadness that when you actually sit down with the Dex and think to yourself, how will I use my new awesome GKT, when I can get more and better results from using Strikes, that makes me want to shake the Dex for it's internal Balance.

 

I want to be able to use GKT as a unit in thier own right.

 

But just about they do (apart from footslogging versus AP3...), Strikes do better.

 

;)

[number6]

If you notice Number6, I tend to add a caveat to my 'always'. That Terminators would be used in themed lists.

 

Which is exactly what you're advocating.

 

Use GKT in a themed 'all termy' list.

 

Fine. No issue with that.

 

For every other entry into an army list, they are out performed by their Strike counterparts.

No, they aren't. They are totally different units that do completely different things. Neither one is better than the other.

 

The list I made wasn't "themed". It's an optimized, tournament competitive army list. Go ahead and try building one as strong as that using any other codex with "all terminators". Not even DA can do it as well. And you can't get as good a list out of the GK codex using all Paladins, either.

 

GKTs make that list competitive. You can't sub in strikers for the same points and get as good a list. If Strikers truly were objectively better -- as you continue to claim -- you should be able to just sub strikers in for all the GKTs in the list and get a better list in the bargain! They're better, right? In all ways? So go ahead and build that list and .... discover for yourself that it just isn't true. Why? Because Strikers aren't GKTs.

 

It's just that simple.

 

They are different units.

They do different things.

You cannot compare apples with oranges.

[nurglez]

well you can, as they are both fruit, but that's where the comparisons end :)

 

I love terminators, sure they aren't as powerful as they should be, doesn't stop me using them at all (though for grey knights I use paladins ;) ).

[Gentlemanloser]

You can't sub in strikers for the same points and get as good a list.

 

Why isn't this list as good as the footslogging GKT list?

 

HQ;

OM Inq, TDA & DH, Psycannon (80)

 

Troop;

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

10 x Strike, 2 x Psycannon, MC NDH (235)

 

Total: 1,490

 

Differences between the two lists.

 

60 wounds versus 30.

96 SB Shots versus 48.

48 Psycannon shots versus 24 (or the same amount if everything moves).

12 Scoring units versus 6.

 

You're slightly less well off in CC, going at I4 instead of I6, but you get double the wounds and double the shots over the 30 GKT version.

 

On top of that you get Warp Quake for DS protection.

 

This will obviously have a harder time versus mass AP3, as I've always stated. But it's better off versus mass AP1/2 than the TDA version.

[Lord Sirrion]

The strikers have a harder time against everything, not just ap 3. difference between a 2 and 3 armor save is pretty big.

[Gentlemanloser]

But they have more wound in total to make up for it. TDA isn't twice as protective as PA overall, yet PA gets twice as many wounds. Strikers are more Durable than GKT overall, and facing any AP bar AP3.

[number6]

I disagree with your assessment of how strong the all-striker army is. The loss of close combat strength is actually quite significant. And the terminators stand up to basic anti-infantry torrents much better than Strikers. Pissing most of that firepower away is a huge strength of the army. Having some kind of invul save over the entire army also goes a long way toward mitigating the damage that strikers would otherwise suffer from low-AP shots.

 

There are a lot of devastator-like spam armies out there, of which Space Wolves are the most common (but I see plenty of codex: marines and BA that field lots of missile devs). 3 long fang squds will have a field day against the striker army. It's really no big deal for the terminators.

 

Virtually all AP 2/1 shooting is either single-shot at long range -- such as lascannons, dark/bright lances -- and so don't inflict much damage. Or it's very short ranged, between 12" and 24", where the GK army is also at it's strongest and most capable. If an IG player wants to roll up 3 vet squads with meltas to annihilate a single combat squad of GKTs, let them! They're gonna get rolled by a multi-charge from just 1, maybe 2, GKT combat squads and most of the army is still going. Meanwhile, you just sacrificed a significant portion of your troops.

 

It isn't quite the same if the IG player is up against all strikers because they have no reason to get close. They can just blast you with standard anti-infantry firepower and AP 3 firepower and not bother risking getting close.

 

And so on and so forth. The inherent differences between Strikers and GKTs is what's at issue here. The all striker army is terrible whereas the all GKT army is good.

 

Compare with the other all-infantry army I made, however. Note how the Strikers are supplemented with long-range firepower (in the form of conversion beamers) and beefy and speedy assault units. That's a list where the GKTs have no place. And yet that army will wipe the table of the pure striker army you listed because it has given up too much in the shooting, movement, and assault phases by comparison with the interceptor army.

 

Again, this can go on forever. Vacuum analysis of units is inaccurate and meaningless. The effectiveness of a unit can only be judged in the context of an entire army list.

[Gentlemanloser]

Again, this can go on forever. Vacuum analysis of units is inaccurate and meaningless. The effectiveness of a unit can only be judged in the context of an entire army list.

 

I thought that was what we were doing! :)

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here :) (and I've no desire to antagonise anyone!). I see the double SB shots as more than enough to make up for the slight loss of CC ability (The loss of FW attacks from Special Weapons, and the I4 to I6). And each Squad having an Invulnerable save is (these days) mitigated by the wealth of Cover saves you can get, that are generally better than a 5++.

 

It's the torrents from the SB I feel will win the day. The mobility is the same in both lists.

 

I just think it's a shame that (even if it's my opinion only) whatever role GKT could provide, Strikes can perform just as well at. Plus they have more options available to them. With Transports, they can be more mobile. They have a distinct Psychic Power. With a Razorback you can get yourself a cheap long range scoring unit (if you don't want a GM backed Rifleman Dread), supported by anti DS backfield support to sit on a home objective.

 

I just can find a use in the Codex, a role for the GKT, that the Strikes can't take up themselves (let alone that I feel that half the number of Palaidn should be taken over any amount of GKT in the first place! :P).

 

And I think that's poor balance. When they could have been designed differently, and hold their own place in the 'dex.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

But they have more wound in total to make up for it. TDA isn't twice as protective as PA overall, yet PA gets twice as many wounds. Strikers are more Durable than GKT overall, and facing any AP bar AP3.

 

Let's break this down with math. As Sinbad said, Math is Power. PA marines cost half as much so have double the wounds for the same price:

 

Wounds:

AP 4+: TDA fails 1/6 of the time, PA 2/6. PA have double the wounds and fail twice as often, so this is a WASH

AP 3: TDA fails 1/6 of the time, PA all the time. Advantage TDA

AP 1/2: TDA fails 4/6 of the time, PA all the time. PA have double the wounds so this actually favors PA. (Compare 6 terminators with 12 GKSS (for ease of math). With 6 wounds 4 terminators would be lost, or 6 PA marines, leaving you with 2 and 6 respectively. The PA marines now more than double their terminator counterparts).

 

 

So to be really precise, Strikers are only more 'durable' against AP 1+2. But yes, they are indeed more durable overall for this reason. At least in the abstract here in Mathland.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Differences between the two lists.

 

60 wounds versus 30.

96 SB Shots versus 48.

48 Psycannon shots versus 24 (or the same amount if everything moves).

12 Scoring units versus 6.

 

I was with you until the last bit. No one in their right mind would footslog 12 five man power armored marine units down the field. Every time you lose a marine you'd have to take a morale test for Pete's sake! Why am the only one who cares about Pete? :)

[Marshal Wilhelm]

for me to field a tactical squad with no upgrades, i pay 165 points. for grey knights it is around 200 points.

then dont try to play green wing because it sucks or if you do use the sm dex . Want to play DA spam cyclons TH/SS termis. spam bikers with scoring landspeeders for late turn objective grabs .

 

this is about as much help as a chocolate fireguard tbh..

i dont want it to seem like im attacking the jeske again, but this attitude is part of the reason why im seeing a big decline in 'friendly' games.

the last few releases of BA/SW and GK have all upped the ante on competative gaming.. granted they all have weaknesses, but if you compare each one to the generic SM dex, youll find that they are quite a bit better.

 

now i realise the arguments would be that certain builds are best to defeat these armies, but thats not what friendly gaming is all about..

i was playing a SW dude the other day at my LGS and he said, i have normal marines but dont play them anymore becuase SW wins more... its very sad that outside of tournaments winning is taking priority over the fun of the game..

it seems everywhere i go people pull out GK and SW lists becuase they are inherantly more capable of winning than most armies.

 

a tac marine is 17 points..

grey hunter is 16?

a GK strike knight with force weapon and storm bolter (and psychic abilites) is 20..

 

the only reason people lose with GK and BA armies in particular is becuase they fall into the trap of taking too many shiny toys.. if you were to build a C:SM type army using any of the newer dexes youd find they were alot better than thier generic counterparts.

Now a part of me agrees that any new dex is hard to beat during its honeymoon period, but ive found GK to be one of the toughest armies to break.. they dont seem to have many abusable weaknesses, and thats a definate balance issue

 

The problem really is from GW. Friendly and fluffy should also be competitive and competent.

Until C:BA, Jumpers were never a serious unit. Sure you could find a use for them, but I can find a use for a rock to hold down some paper too :P

C:SM Captains with Jump Packs should unlock Jumpers as TROOPS and they should be good ones, not the C:SM ones. Same thing with VV.

 

Anyway, I digress. My point is, Bob shouldn't have to take Unit X in his list to have a strong list. Yet that is generally the case. Then Bob gets grief from his mates for being a power gamer. All choices in a Dex should being more or less a good choice. Hammernators shouldn't be the choice for any serious C:SM list. Yes, I know we have people here who try very hard to not run that Unit X and show that other units are viable, but we all know that if they put that effort into using Unit X, they'd be kicking even more goals.

 

I know GW has, without trying to sound a jerk, competence issues, changing gaming ideas and a mandate to sell what they've invested money into when they write a Dex. Only Johnny FluffLord would ever take Blood Claws when he could've taken Grey Hunters, etc.

 

The problem is with GW. If the units were within a tolerance, guys wanting fluff could play and not get stomped, and others wanting to enjoy a good trial of mental strength won't get stigmatised.

 

The thing is, GW has made it clear that they are increasing the Powa! Level up in 5th ed. In a sense, "the future is already here". You can look back with nostalgia for what was, but I don't think GW will be changing their tune any time soon. Embrace what GW has given us, because by lamenting what has past, you'll only miss out on the good that the change does have.

 

Is digital music as good as analogue? No. But you can basically carry a lifetime's worth of music around in your pocket, and when listening via ear phones or your car stereo, you are possibly not missing out on much from the compression anyway.

 

Take the pros from the change.

 

Those are my thoughts on it, anyway.

 

Now onto the "fun" bit:

I have gathered a little group of 40k tournament expatriates who have decided that competitive 40k is basically ruining the game. We have branched out into some other games but more importantly there is a tacit agreement that when we play 40k we play lists that are fun to play AGAINST. I think most folks have forgotten the importance of that last point.

I know I get irked when people try and tell somebody -- anybody -- what is or isn't "fun". ;) Maybe competitive gaming IS fun gaming, too? The common insistence that there is an objectively invioble divide between being competitive and being fun is hogwash.

 

All that makes a game fun is the attitude of the players. It has nothing to do with army lists. At all. So long as the players are on the same page of expectations, all will be well and "fun".

 

I am also surprised that this far into the history of our new codex people are still claiming that there is an objective superiority among units. Strikers are "always" better than terminators. Purifers are "always" better than strikers. Paladins are "always" better than terminators.

 

Just more opinionated hogwash. GW may make a lot of boneheaded mistakes, but one thing they have been doing exceptionally well ever since 5th edition is creating codexes where virtually every unit can be put to good use ... in the context of an entire army list. You cannot compare units together in a vacuum. You can only compare entire army lists. Which one works more efficiently? Which one carries out its tactical plan better? Etc.

 

It does seem to me that there are bands of players, some of the people I would consider my friends here on B&C, that are actually highly intolerant of people not playing their way. This really surprises me.

 

We escape from reality, yet hold these make believe stories and arbitrary rules for made up factions to be Gospel, and chasten those who deviate from its Truth - woah!

People hate counts as. Hate taking good lists to tournaments, etc.

 

Why does competitive have to be not fun?

 

My family plays a number of wacky games, yet we give it a red hot go and love it, laughing our heads off at silly games like twister. We also have a game "hot rice" in which a tennis ball is thrown at the person in the middle who has a tennis racquet, whilst we all crowd around to catch the deflected ball. The game would be pretty lame if we didn't try to hit the racquet wielder - which is actually what gets you into the middle. I remember during high school, when girls got awkward at sports, that they really stopped enjoying it. Yet the girls who kept playing inspite of their changing bodies, were the ones who got the biggest thrill and had the most laughs from playing the physical education classes. They were having fun AND competing... AT THE SAME TIME.

 

The fact is, you cannot actually replicate GW fluff on the table faithfully. Marines don't die to enemy guns as they do on the table, and they sure don't send equal points worth of Marines against the target. 100 Marines versus 100 Guardsmen is much more likely.

 

Why the big hang up on "playing fluffy"?

You cannot do it, GW has made the rules so this is not possible and so the game is fairer for non-Marine factions. Yet people get hung up with spamming or other potentially advantageous tactics.

If you don't want to win, why get so hung up with the other guy making a fist of it?

If you do care about winning, then try harder and write better lists and use better tactics.

Saying "I don't care about winning and so won't use 'this unit' or 'that tactic'" but then getting angry because someone has beaten you seems uneven to me.

 

I just don't get why people try to force others to play the hobby the way they want it played and then stigmatise those who don't tow the line.

-_-

[Gentlemanloser]

My point is, Bob shouldn't have to take Unit X in his list to have a strong list. Yet that is generally the case. Then Bob gets grief from his mates for being a power gamer. All choices in a Dex should being more or less a good choice. Hammernators shouldn't be the choice for any serious C:SM list.

 

This!!

 

I've been not only the subject of this, but been on the other end as well -_-

[Adir]

Why the big hang up on "playing fluffy"?

You cannot do it, GW has made the rules so this is not possible and so the game is fairer for non-Marine factions. Yet people get hung up with spamming or other potentially advantageous tactics.

If you don't want to win, why get so hung up with the other guy making a fist of it?

If you do care about winning, then try harder and write better lists and use better tactics.

Saying "I don't care about winning and so won't use 'this unit' or 'that tactic'" but then getting angry because someone has beaten you seems uneven to me.

 

I just don't get why people try to force others to play the hobby the way they want it played and then stigmatise those who don't tow the line.

<_<

 

Wow, I stopped paying attention to this thread and it just keeps growing.

 

Not sure whether MW's post was entirely directed at me. I apologize if my earlier post came off as self-righteous regarding "competitive" 40k. I guess I should clarify.

 

Simply put, for me, "competitive" 40k is bringing the same tournament focused list over and over and over again with minor tweaks as the player tries to tune that list into its most competitive form or its finding the one list that wins consistently and using that list over and over again. For me, it is that mentality that is "ruining" the hobby side of the game. But that sense of ruining is entirely subjective and I guess I should say it is ruining the hobby for me... just me. I don't rail against competitive gamers, rather I just game with likeminded folks - mainly to ensure that I continue to enjoy the hobby.

 

I mirror the same frustration that most people have regarding balance, power creep, etc. This discussion is a great example of why 40k inherently can't have a level playing field for competition. Even in the same codex, there is a strong sense of "good" and "bad" units. The Psilencer is a good example of a "bad" upgrade (although I am sure someone out there can make a case for why this is good - anyone?). A good counter example would be Infinity. All Infinity units are balanced by one set of rules. Arguably in Infinity there are no "bad" units as each is held to the same internally consistent standard. There is NO equivalent standard in 40k. There is no internal consistency in 40k. Because of this, "competitive" 40k (again, just for me) is a garden path that ultimately leads to an escalation of sameness across lists (razorspam, psy/c rifleman, etc.) just to allow you a level(ish) playing field across which you can compete.

 

The games MW referenced playing with family can be competitive because ultimately everyone plays with the same rules. This is true for Infinity, Necromunda, Mordheim, etc. because all the rules come from one reference source. The same cannot be said for 40k and hence it can never offer the level playing field that competitive gamers are seemingly looking for.

 

Apologies for the wall of text :P

[BOBMAKENZIE]

(although I am sure someone out there can make a case for why this is good - anyone?)

 

its free on strikers and gives you another wound allocation group and more options for that squad. Its not something I would advocate taking a whole lot of but in small numbers I think it is a very useful option. (In much the same way Flamers are generally amazing but a few of them on the right unit in the right place can be super helpful just to have)

[greatcrusade08]

id say that being competative and playing to win are two different things..

number6 (IIRC) asked why should anyone have the right to say whats fun and whats not for him.. but that goes both ways does does it not?

2 players must both enjoy the game IMO

[thade]

id say that being competative and playing to win are two different things..

number6 (IIRC) asked why should anyone have the right to say whats fun and whats not for him.. but that goes both ways does does it not?

2 players must both enjoy the game IMO

These words are wisdom incarnate.

[number6]

number6 (IIRC) asked why should anyone have the right to say whats fun and whats not for him.. but that goes both ways does does it not?

2 players must both enjoy the game IMO

It totally goes both ways. ;) You may recall...

 

All that makes a game fun is the attitude of the players. [...] So long as the players are on the same page of expectations, all will be well and "fun".

 

To be clear: I'm not trying to tell Adir (not trying to pick on him, but his post was what inspired my initial response) or other self-proclaimed "hobbyist" gamers that they're playing the game wrong. As I stated, so long as he's got a group of like-minded opponents, he's playing the game "right". :D

 

I just get tired of the old chestnut -- usually lobbed from self-proclaimed "fluffy" players (another definition I dislike on its face, as "fluff" is incredibly subjective and personalized) -- that competitive gaming ruins the hobby. Which implicitly states that being competitive is "wrong".

 

I promise: I won't tell you you're ruining the hobby if you don't tell me that I am. Deal? :D

[Adir]

I just get tired of the old chestnut -- usually lobbed from self-proclaimed "fluffy" players (another definition I dislike on its face, as "fluff" is incredibly subjective and personalized) -- that competitive gaming ruins the hobby. Which implicitly states that being competitive is "wrong".

 

I promise: I won't tell you you're ruining the hobby if you don't tell me that I am. Deal? :P

6, I didn't take it that you were picking on me at all. I think that my forum-fu is weak as I am not expressing myself clearly at all. You (6) are NOT my idea of a "competitive" gamer. You see something useful in most if not all of the units in the codex. You post on how units work together and that no one unit can be considered in the singular.

 

Let me be clear... I play tournaments, I judge tournaments, I enjoy tournaments... I just have gotten tired of seeing the same types of lists over and over again. And for me it is the desire to play 40k "competitively" that has gotten us to that point. I use quotes because you can win using foot slogging lists, using crazy terminator lists, using NO psy/c rifleman dreads. It take more thought, more tactical planning, and yes, sometime more luck but for me that makes the victory all the sweeter!

 

Let me redo my original statement... it is the sameness of army lists that is ruining the hobby for me!

 

For example, I took a foot slogging guard list to the Adepticon 40k Championships... and the first 3 lists I faced were all mechanized space marines (2 blood angels, 1 space wolf). With the inevitable exception of the long fang spam not a single marine started with boots on the ground. It was boring... I beat all three and the guy who knocked me out in the 4th game was a very cool all bike White Scars list!

[number6]

I also should have been more clear. My "you"s in my previous post weren't directed at any one individual. Including you, Adir. :)

 

It was the generic "you". An "everybody" you. :P

 

I too would prefer to see a bit more variety in army lists, especially at the tournament level. However, it must be said that 40K makes mechanization a tactically potent yet easily understood choice. This is why it's so commonly seen at tournaments, not because there is something inherently better about mech vs other, non-mech tournament-worthy builds (e.g., the all-infantry lists I referred to earlier). Hybrid and pure infantry lists are usually more challenging to run properly. (Think quality Tau army lists, which are hybrid mech/infantry. That's a very difficult army list to master, yet is very scary to face in the hands of a good general.)

 

Blah blah blah. I'm veering this way off target now. Bad me....

[BrotherWasted]

Variety?

 

Are you people serious?

 

So long as a game is based on any form of diversity or choice, people will ALWAYS gravitate to the more effective options available. Game Theory 101: People can be expected to act in their own best interest during competition. Even if the game is so finely balanced to the point of near homogenaeity between armies, competitive players will still more commonly pick what they find is strongest.

 

To say people play mech because it's easier to understand is foolhardy. People play mech because it works, and it works damn well. Yes, you can build infantry lists that will straight up ruin a mech list that is not prepared, but many armies can do the same versus infantry.

 

@Adir: Biker lists are one of the Vanilla Codexes best lists right now. You shouldn't be surprised that you faced it - it's not exactly unorthodox or different. Vanilla mech doesn't compare to SW/BA/GK mech at the moment.

[thade]

Variety?

 

Are you people serious?

Very.

 

Why is that so strange? I always try to get variety into my lists. (It's kind of easy when one uses a BA codex and uses no BA-specific units.)

 

Competition can be fun, but it really depends on the attitude of my opponents more than anything else. Whether I win or lose pales in comparison to whether both I and my opponent seemed to have a good time. I hate tabling people. I learn nothing and they don't enjoy it. I prefer minor victories, draws, and losses. I learn a lot more from losing than winning; I suspect you do too. And let's face it, major victory or better is almost always because you were obviously winning from the get go and you're stomping the other guy into oblivion. (In those rare instances where it looks like a draw and you tweak out a major in a brilliant turn...well, brilliant!)

 

This is a game with plastic army mans. It should be fun for both parties. ;)

 

If you enjoy mini-maxed lists fresh from the interwebs, I don't fault you for it. I just don't understand it.

 

I'm currently modelling and painting an apothecary (Sanguine Priest counts-as) in terminator armor...which is points-wise dumb. But I'm going to field him. And he's going to charge into combat.

 

I intend to win those games. ;)

[Grey Mage]

Actually variety works in the competitive gamers advantage, strongly.

 

Not only are most of the units dissmissed as uncompetitive not bad- merely out of place next to certain other units, ie they dont fit in power build A- the ability to excel using a non-standard list means youll be bringing things to the table that other people are not as prepared to counter.

 

The same old list, tweaked to hell, over and and over against is predictable. It only has so many tricks and it can only be done some many times before it begins to play itself. This cuts deep as not only is your list more known but in many cases you yourself will begin to play it in a predictable fashion.

 

Rather I prefer lists that are off the grid, allowing me to use units that other people underestimate or simply dont encounter regularly enough to have an immediate knee-jerk counter for. Or to use known units in unusual ways in order to take advantage of that knee-jerk reaction. The latter is harder than the former, but makes a great tactic of opportunity.

 

I just dont understand why people have a hard time building lists, and further why they feel the need to copy others as if it was the road to the promised land.

[Something Wycked]

Following in Thade's footsteps, I modify a quote thusly:

Actually variety works in the competitive gamers advantage, strongly. I will follow up this thesis statement with a brilliant post.

I've been advocating just this principle to our Traitor brethren in the past few days. It doesn't seem to be taking root in their minds, but that doesn't make the idea any less sound.

 

Variety isn't just the spice of life, it is the heartsblood.

[BrotherWasted]

Then your opponent is an idiot for not having an idea of what those units do, or asking to see your Codex.

 

People have hard times building lists because they try the exact things you suggest and get punished for it. It is really no more simpler than that.

 

Your tactics with lesser known units will certainly work, but the tactics employed by lists that are stronger overall will work more. That's all there is to it really.