Foot slogging army Questions

[Simo429]

I feel special, maybe I should hide behind a blog and write about people who have prejudices against a mainly foot slogging list. Ignoring the fact that maybe....just maybe, I play against the opponent. Playing on their over-confidence, and against an inexperienced WOMAN, at that. Enough for them to make a mistake, any at that, for me to capitalize on. Yes, I know about threat ranges and threat projection. But I don't sit and wait for my opponent to move towards me for the entire game! that's dull. Nor do I have my heavies at the farthest edge of the table closest to me, some of them are at the edge of my deployment, closest towards my opponent at the start of each game. I play my wolves in the mid-field... playing my wolves to their strengths. I play my wolves both defensive and offensively. And no my opponents don't always get distracted by long range fire power, they don't always leave my troops free to run around, who would? and why would simo all of a sudden assume that was always the case? some of my Grey Hunters get shot up, most of them are inside rhinos, or behind one. But while that's all happening, at least one of the Grey Hunter packs get where I want them to be.

As I said on my blog I put my thoughts on there because a lot of our followers are British 40k tournament players, we even had a bloggers only tournament the other week so by asking them I get a different point of view on the situation becuase I have no bias against footslogging armies I don't believe they work but that doesn't stop me evaluating my list constantly against what other people are taking because its ow I become a better player.

 

I have never mentioned the fact that you are a woman. It has no bearing on what I think. I believe that the list I currently play with in the majority of games has the edge over a foot slogging list and if I didn't I wouldn't play with it because I like going to tournaments and when I am there I want to do as well as I can which is what I think all tournament players do. No one likes coming last and while wanting to win doesn't mean I need to win at a tournament there is nothing wrong with taking the nastiest list possible and trying your best, its what I expect my opponents to do.

 

I think you are also starting to confuse myself with someone else, I never said

But I don't sit and wait for my opponent to move towards me for the entire game! that's dull. Nor do I have my heavies at the farthest edge of the table closest to me, some of them are at the edge of my deployment, closest towards my opponent at the start of each game

the main thing I have read about your tactics is your ideas about reading your opponent and your ideas about distraction.

 

I don't believe that 40K is that much of a tactical game, for me it is a game of attrition. You look for what is nastiest and you hit it till you have gone and move on.

[Hear da Lamentation]

Great posts all round - good advice from both camps (I'm no fan of YTTH either GM ... too arrogant for me).

 

Anyway ... I waqs surprised to see a footsloggin list from Vantius with only 1 unit of LF. Interesting. You've played it - and it works ... so fair play, but I would have though 2-3 units of LF would be a must.

 

Interesting reading for sure ....

[Simo429]

Great posts all round - good advice from both camps (I'm no fan of YTTH either GM ... too arrogant for me).

 

Anyway ... I waqs surprised to see a footsloggin list from Vantius with only 1 unit of LF. Interesting. You've played it - and it works ... so fair play, but I would have though 2-3 units of LF would be a must.

 

Interesting reading for sure ....

When you get passed the internet persona and the feuds with other bloggers I think that Stelak is a very good 40K player and a lot of what he does really makes sense and is there to improve peoples competitive play.

 

@Theis I do think that as you go up the points level footslogging becomes more viable because you can provide more targets. How many more twinlinked lascannons can guard put down at 2000 points that they haven't already used up at 1750 whereas wolves could put another squad of thunderwolves meaning that target saturation is much more of an issue.

[thade]

Your average rhino on a 15% field wont make it past the 2nd round of shooting.

When you think about how early and often our transports die, it's almost as if we're foot-slogging much of the time anyway. ;)

 

I'm very curious to try a force with more than a few squads on foot. I've gotten so used to my boxes that I've stopped wondering what those additional points may be used for. (Considering that I use the BA dex, there are more than a few points to spare there.)

[maverik_girl]

I have never mentioned the fact that you are a woman. It has no bearing on what I think. I believe that the list I currently play with in the majority of games has the edge over a foot slogging list and if I didn't I wouldn't play with it because I like going to tournaments and when I am there I want to do as well as I can which is what I think all tournament players do. No one likes coming last and while wanting to win doesn't mean I need to win at a tournament there is nothing wrong with taking the nastiest list possible and trying your best, its what I expect my opponents to do.

how or where do you get insecure from, in your blog comment? when all I mention, is that being an inexperienced woman (new player) plays to an advantage, by an opponents assumptions/first impressions. How many women have you played? and thought to yourself, meh.. she's a woman shouldn't be much of a challenge. It happens in sports all the time, judging a book (person) by its cover is a natural human behavior. Alright that's fair enough, posting your entry on a blog and all. I guess it's just that, you sounded so convincing, and sure of yourself on B&C, that I was just surprised that you even needed expert tournament bloggers to "equip and answer your questions." are you suggesting that those people back at B&C aren't equally capable to answer in a competitive mindset? or is it just answers you want/prefer to hear instead of need to hear?

 

Let me get this straight, so your saying 40K is just a random game, with dice and plastic/metal little men were your not trying to out think your opponent, or thinking ahead of your opponent by taking an objective and keeping that objective? but it's alright! at least during your games, your have a self monologue happening. I guess we might have a new Morgan Freeman in our hands. You realize I'm just fcukin with you? oh wait, am I suppose to be insecure? I missed my cue damn! I never got the memo... I'm sorry!

 

I don't believe that 40K is that much of a tactical game, for me it is a game of attrition. You look for what is nastiest and you hit it till you have gone and move on.

wait okay now I'm confused.... didn't you state that, "I have to question how good your regular opponents are if they get distracted by your long range fire power to ignore your troops long enough to let them threaten." So which is nasty again? the troops or those long ranged that can hit back?

[Theis]

Greymage, thank you, and then, well, Stelek isn't that bad, in my opinion. I find his tone is generally where things fall apart for him, with regard to reaching a larger audience. Filter out some of the abrasiveness and he definitely offers an insight into a subset of the competitive community. MSU seems to be his specialty, and his concepts he tests lists against are entertaining, and valid. Some of his recent, can you beat this list sorts of articles have caused me to evaluate some of my own thought processes certainly.

 

I also find Kirby and the gang over at 3++ to be invaluable. Both sites served as good starting points, for me, when it came to amping up my game a bit. (In all fairness, amping it up an awful lot actually)

 

On sparse terrain, I have had it reported, and see enough evidence pictorially, from various blogs, that I think it should be planned for. I don't think it is a pervasive issue. By sparse I mean 15 to 20% instead of the 25% threshold. If I recall correctly there were some blog posts about it on various sites around 'ard boyz time last year. My personal experience with it is non-existent. My flgs is blessed with an overabundance of high quality terrain, and every tournament I have participated in personally, terrain hasn't been an issue. In my post above, I was speaking from a purely theory-crafted sort of perspective. What advice would I like if I were in the original poster's position.

 

I agree with you with regard to its effect on foot sloggers, not so much on mech. I find type of terrain makes more difference there. In heavy mech armies there's always the possibility of providing cover saves with your own vehicles via conga lines, free pivots, smoke launchers and the like. Then again a core element of my wolf guard list involves a storm shield equipped shooty squad providing cover for the shootier squads behind it. So, an argument can be made that the same ability works for either side of the discussion. IC's with saga of the hunter let us exploit that sort of thing too. Still, on a wide open table, I think I'd prefer mech, a destroyed transport becomes instant cover, etc.

 

Speaking of 3++, a decent article on terrain there;

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/06/...tup-by-mvb.html

 

Which leads me back to type of terrain. One of the points they make in that article is that LOS blocking terrain is mandatory. Arguments can be made against that, but in practice, I've usually seen a good los blocking ruin, obelisk, or the like on every table I've ever played on. I have seen pictures of tournaments where there weren't any at all, just forests, low walls, low hills and some other things that might go the height of rhino, maybe.

 

I think my terrain point devolves down to, at it's most simple, there's a world of difference between 25% of the table covered in trees or forested area terrain, and 25% covered in three story ruins. By sparse I meant, less than 25% with few if any pieces being able to block true los on anything bigger than a terminator. Sparse was too ambiguous a term to have used, and I could have sworn I'd edited out the word often in, "sparse terrain happens often." I've gone back and removed it just now.

 

Simo, yup. My preferred sort of foot list calls for Logan, and there's a world of difference between him accounting for 12% of your points vs. 25%. When I was first starting out on evolving one of my twolf lists, I was spending 1200 points on two squads of thunder wolves and two wolf mounted ics.

[MaveriK]

if it makes any difference to anyone, I'll make sure MavGirl gets disciplined in my own way ;) to get back on topic, I agree with Grey Mage and Valerian. Could someone pass the popcorn?

[thade]

How many women have you played?

Two.

 

...and thought to yourself, meh.. she's a woman shouldn't be much of a challenge.

Zero.

 

Both of the girls that I've played against have been savvy. One was very new; I did not go easy on her and yet I barely managed to win. She ran Sisters of Battle allied with Imperial Guard.

 

The other I have played against several times. She runs a Tyranid drop pod army and I religiously field Mephiston against her (by request). We've played half a dozen games and have ended with Draws each and every time.

 

Perhaps my experience is unique, but I don't underestimate any opponent; least of all a female player.

 

As for the game not being tactical...I sort of balked at that. Not really sure how to respond to it, other than something that can't help but seem rude: like "Have you ever played against anybody 1. other than yourself? 2. older than 14? 3. at all?" Every game I play feels like an exercise in strategy, patience, and consideration. I love this game for that.

 

EDIT: typoz

[maverik_girl]

@thade, sorry about that! but that was directed towards simo... continuing on from his blog post/reply:

 

"You are an incredibly insecure person. Never once have I said anything about you being a woman and the influence it has on your 40K ability. I put this on here because it will get a different readership than on Bolter and Chainsword. A lot of people who blog are tournament players and so are equipped to answer my questions on whether foot sloggers are viable in the tournament setting.

 

40K is not poker where you are trying to out think your opponent and bluff your way through a game. Playing your opponent would have no benefit against me because I openly talk through my moves and thinking patterns with myself to slow down my gaming."

[Simo429]

I have never mentioned the fact that you are a woman. It has no bearing on what I think. I believe that the list I currently play with in the majority of games has the edge over a foot slogging list and if I didn't I wouldn't play with it because I like going to tournaments and when I am there I want to do as well as I can which is what I think all tournament players do. No one likes coming last and while wanting to win doesn't mean I need to win at a tournament there is nothing wrong with taking the nastiest list possible and trying your best, its what I expect my opponents to do.

how or where do you get insecure from, in your blog comment? when all I mention, is that being an inexperienced woman (new player) plays to an advantage, by an opponents assumptions/first impressions. How many women have you played? and thought to yourself, meh.. she's a woman shouldn't be much of a challenge. It happens in sports all the time, judging a book (person) by its cover is a natural human behavior. Alright that's fair enough, posting your entry on a blog and all. I guess it's just that, you sounded so convincing, and sure of yourself on B&C, that I was just surprised that you even needed expert tournament bloggers to "equip and answer your questions." are you suggesting that those people back at B&C aren't equally capable to answer in a competitive mindset? or is it just answers you want/prefer to hear instead of need to hear?

 

Let me get this straight, so your saying 40K is just a random game, with dice and plastic/metal little men were your not trying to out think your opponent, or thinking ahead of your opponent by taking an objective and keeping that objective? but it's alright! at least during your games, your have a self monologue happening. I guess we might have a new Morgan Freeman in our hands. You realize I'm just fcukin with you? oh wait, am I suppose to be insecure? I missed my cue damn! I never got the memo... I'm sorry!

 

I don't believe that 40K is that much of a tactical game, for me it is a game of attrition. You look for what is nastiest and you hit it till you have gone and move on.

wait okay now I'm confused.... didn't you state that, "I have to question how good your regular opponents are if they get distracted by your long range fire power to ignore your troops long enough to let them threaten." So which is nasty again? the troops or those long ranged that can hit back?

Why are you insecure? Because you constantly mention personal things that have no bearing on the debate at hand.

I have never played a woman at 40K, I don't play women at sports. I don't need to think about them being one way or another because it doesn't come up.

 

When in two out of three of the missions holding objectives will win you the game and even more so using ETC rules then troops are always your biggest target unless of course there is something that is going to seriously cause you damage first turn. Long fangs are an attrition unit, very rarely do they change a game first turn, what they do is fire consistently for a game.

 

How many British tournament players post regularly in this area of the forum? As I explained, that is why I asked the question on my blog. I contribute to a blog because I consistently evaluate my play. I know there are better players than me out there, I look for answers elsewhere, nothing that you have said so far have provided me with any evidence that you can successfully use a foot slogging army at a tournament.

 

40K is not poker, there are no bluffs. You know exactly what your opponent has. It also isn't chess a game where each move only leaves a certain number of moves to follow, with 40K the choices that are made create an infinite number of moves. If you can play someone consistently then I believe you can play your opponent, one of my regular opponents has the habit of just hiding and hoping for the best. Him doing that neither improves myself or him in game play.

[Roland Durendal]

Yay a 3++ shoutout and reference! Now I have to go tell the great Pink one...

 

 

On the topic of YTTH, Stelek has great ideas and theories, and I followed him for a long while, it's just his delivery can be off-putting at times. With that said, I stopped following mainly b/c I just stopped 40K in general (and Kirby offered me a chance to write occasional articles on his blog), but I've heard Stelek's quality articles and analysis has increased a lot as of late and all the e-drama has subsided, so I think I'm going to start checking it out again.

 

As for viable foot lists, there is one with Wolves: Loganwing. Chumby brought it to the NOVA tournament last year and did really well, and Kirby and Stelek both have articles discussing it's strengths/weaknesses and viability as a tourney army.

 

Basic concept is Logan, Njal, a bunch of Wolf Guard in TDA with cyclones, some Lone Wolves, some Wolf Scouts, some small TWC squads, and LFs with missiles.

[maverik_girl]

Why are you insecure? Because you constantly mention personal things that have no bearing on the debate at hand.

I have never played a woman at 40K, I don't play women at sports. I don't need to think about them being one way or another because it doesn't come up.

 

When in two out of three of the missions holding objectives will win you the game and even more so using ETC rules then troops are always your biggest target unless of course there is something that is going to seriously cause you damage first turn. Long fangs are an attrition unit, very rarely do they change a game first turn, what they do is fire consistently for a game.

 

How many British tournament players post regularly in this area of the forum? As I explained, that is why I asked the question on my blog. I contribute to a blog because I consistently evaluate my play. I know there are better players than me out there, I look for answers elsewhere, nothing that you have said so far have provided me with any evidence that you can successfully use a foot slogging army at a tournament.

 

40K is not poker, there are no bluffs. You know exactly what your opponent has. It also isn't chess a game where each move only leaves a certain number of moves to follow, with 40K the choices that are made create an infinite number of moves. If you can play someone consistently then I believe you can play your opponent, one of my regular opponents has the habit of just hiding and hoping for the best. Him doing that neither improves myself or him in game play.

personal things? stating the fact that I'm just a girl is insecure all of sudden? so is saying the sky blue, make it insecure also? and why you getting all serious and defensive, is that a hint of insecurity? all jokes aside... you still haven't touched up on this, but you never do really give a straight answer.

 

I don't believe that 40K is that much of a tactical game, for me it is a game of attrition. You look for what is nastiest and you hit it till you have gone and move on.

wait okay now I'm confused.... didn't you state that, "I have to question how good your regular opponents are if they get distracted by your long range fire power to ignore your troops long enough to let them threaten." So which is nasty again? the troops or those long ranged that can hit back?

 

nothing that you have said so far have provided me with any evidence that you can successfully use a foot slogging army at a tournament.

;) maybe you should wait until someone in your blog post some answers who is a tournament player. would that make simo happy? simo good boy, good :)

[Simo429]

What straight answers am I not providing.

 

Give me a list of questions without any bollocks of you being sarky and I will provide said answers as to how I see it.

 

If after all this time you have just been on a fishing trip congratulations I have well and truly been fished but I don't come on here for witty repartee I come on to talk about 40K.

[maverik_girl]

I come on to talk about 40K.

but isn't this thread about 40K?

 

--edit--

your looking for reasons why or how foot slogging can work, plenty of people here have given you that. i'm a novice at this, so i don't know why your waiting on me to give you answers you want to hear LOL when those with more experience and knowledge can

[thade]

40K is not poker, there are no bluffs. You know exactly what your opponent has.

No bluffs about list/unit abilities, that's true. But I certainly feint and use bait-and-switch tactics to influence my opponent's decisions. For instance, I'm remarkably good at discerning whether or not a unit is within 6" just by eye-balling it...so I have on occasion moved an infantry unit to around 7" away which will cause opponents to fire with pistols instead of rapid-fire weapons and then try (and fail) to charge. Surely you've used such tactics?

 

Also, you can trick or psych out your opponent out by making dramatic movements with much of your force in a certain direction, or deploying in a way that implies you're going to do something that you won't. For instance, in a Capture & Control game where I was going second, I set my objective in a building, second floor, mentioning that it looked defensible. THIS WAS THE BLUFF. I mean, it wasn't a lie...it certainly was defensible. The bluff was that I had no intention of defending it.

 

The table looked like this (where 'x' was his objective and 'y' was mine):

 

================
|		   x  |
|			  |
|			  |
|   y		  |
================

 

Naturally he took the bait, because I look like a trustworthy guy. So he did what any self-respecting Space Wolf player would do. He arrayed his entire force as close to my objective as he could to steamroll in and assail it, leaving a single Long Fang unit to defend his objective.

 

I deployed most of my force as close to his objective as I could, leaving Mephiston, a tactical squad, and a jump team in reserves (to jump out and cover/retake my objective later).

 

Long story short, he diverted most of his force to take the long road over to stop me; I was able to ground most of his transports as they tried to make it, and he ended up stretching himself thin, facing my entire force with one or two units at a time. I won, 2-to-0.

 

Strategy is a very big element in this game.

 

It also isn't chess a game where each move only leaves a certain number of moves to follow, with 40K the choices that are made create an infinite number of moves.

If this doesn't open the floor for tactics, then what would?

 

@thade, sorry about that! but that was directed towards simo

No apology necessary; I thought it was directed at the lot of us fools. ;) So, as a proud fool, I spoke up.

 

EDIT: Thinking back on that game, my opponent had kept one GH squad in a Rhino in reserve as well, which he did roll in to try and control/retake his own objective. They came in late and had to deal with my tacticals and sternguard who'd set up shop in that. That was also a game where Mephiston and Njal had a three turn duel, dancing around a Land Raider that Meph had torn apart. Silly Njal anti-psyker shenanigans.

[Simo429]

I come on to talk about 40K.

but isn't this thread about 40K?

Who isn't answering a question straight now?

 

No this now seems to be a thread with you talking about anything but 40K.

Ranging for your gender, my profession, your chess and poker playing skills, your experiences of playing men at sports and them demeaning you.

 

Which questions have I not answered thoroughly enough for you?

[maverik_girl]

I come on to talk about 40K.

but isn't this thread about 40K?

Who isn't answering a question straight now?

 

No this now seems to be a thread with you talking about anything but 40K.

Ranging for your gender, my profession, your chess and poker playing skills, your experiences of playing men at sports and them demeaning you.

 

Which questions have I not answered thoroughly enough for you?

woah woah woah... i only pointed out the fact that i'm a female who's new at the game. it was an example! and experiences of playing men was another example. it wasn't focused on "demeaning" it was more about first impressions. your profession and everything else was at another thread not this! as for the not answering straight, well I guess I learned it from you ;)

 

your looking for reasons why or how foot slogging can work, plenty of people here have given you that. i'm a novice at this, so i don't know why your waiting on me to give you answers you want to hear LOL when those with more experience and knowledge can

[Simo429]

I come on to talk about 40K.

but isn't this thread about 40K?

Who isn't answering a question straight now?

 

No this now seems to be a thread with you talking about anything but 40K.

Ranging for your gender, my profession, your chess and poker playing skills, your experiences of playing men at sports and them demeaning you.

 

Which questions have I not answered thoroughly enough for you?

woah woah woah... i only pointed out the fact that i'm a female who's new at the game. it was an example! and experiences of playing men was another example. it wasn't focused on "demeaning" it was more about first impressions. your profession and everything else was at another thread not this! as for the not answering straight, well I guess I learned it from you ;)

 

your looking for reasons why or how foot slogging can work, plenty of people here have given you that. i'm a novice at this, so i don't know why your waiting on me to give you answers you want to hear LOL when those with more experience and knowledge can

 

So if after all this time you have realised that you aren't equipped to debate this why bother in the first place?

[maverik_girl]

40K is not poker, there are no bluffs. You know exactly what your opponent has.

No bluffs about list/unit abilities, that's true. But I certainly feint and use bait-and-switch tactics to influence my opponent's decisions. For instance, I'm remarkably good at discerning whether or not a unit is within 6" just by eye-balling it...so I have on occasion moved an infantry unit to around 7" away which will cause opponents to fire with pistols instead of rapid-fire weapons and then try (and fail) to charge. Surely you've used such tactics?

 

Also, you can trick or psych out your opponent out by making dramatic movements with much of your force in a certain direction, or deploying in a way that implies you're going to do something that you won't. For instance, in a Capture & Control game where I was going second, I set my objective in a building, second floor, mentioning that it looked defensible. THIS WAS THE BLUFF. I mean, it wasn't a lie...it certainly was defensible. The bluff was that I had no intention of defending it.

 

The table looked like this (where 'x' was his objective and 'y' was mine):

 

================
|		   x  |
|			  |
|			  |
|   y		  |
================

 

Naturally he took the bait, because I look like a trustworthy guy. So he did what any self-respecting Space Wolf player would do. He arrayed his entire force as close to my objective as he could to steamroll in and assail it, leaving a single Long Fang unit to defend his objective.

 

I deployed most of my force as close to his objective as I could, leaving Mephiston, a tactical squad, and a jump team in reserves (to jump out and cover/retake my objective later).

 

Long story short, he diverted most of his force to take the long road over to stop me; I was able to ground most of his transports as they tried to make it, and he ended up stretching himself thin, facing my entire force with one or two units at a time. I won, 2-to-0.

 

Strategy is a very big element in this game.

 

It also isn't chess a game where each move only leaves a certain number of moves to follow, with 40K the choices that are made create an infinite number of moves.

If this doesn't open the floor for tactics, then what would?

 

@thade, sorry about that! but that was directed towards simo

No apology necessary; I thought it was directed at the lot of us fools. <_< So, as a proud fool, I spoke up.

 

EDIT: Thinking back on that game, my opponent had kept one GH squad in a Rhino in reserve as well, which he did roll in to try and control/retake his own objective. They came in late and had to deal with my tacticals and sternguard who'd set up shop in that. That was also a game where Mephiston and Njal had a three turn duel, dancing around a Land Raider that Meph had torn apart. Silly Njal anti-psyker shenanigans.

agreed with everything you pointed out. the use bait-and-switch tactics to influence an opponent's decisions is great, i've learned to work at it through trial and error... it does work and you get to pick up on your opponents mannerisms. you also get a feel to what he will most likely target and you use that to your advantage. In a mainly foot sloggin list your forced to think faster and ahead of your opponent.

 

So if after all this time you have realised that you aren't equipped to debate this why bother in the first place?

sadly no that wasn't my intention from the start, nor was it my "goal" as you've already proven my point to those people who can read between the lines ;)

[thade]

In a mainly foot sloggin list your forced to think faster and ahead of your opponent.

That challenge there is where its appeal lies. Maybe we should view transports - not as a necessity - but as a crutch.

[Simo429]

There are far more tactical games than 40k out there, fantasy is one for starters and the rumours of the changes to 40k 6th make it seem like it will be taking a step towards a more tactical game however the modern meta has moved far more towards a dice off than a game of tactics. If your opponents leave one long fangs pack to hold an objective then they are mad.

 

You have elements to your army and you know their role. Its what a good list builder does.

You have elements that hold your objective in capture and control and you have support elements for them. You then have the elements that go towards your opponents objective.

 

I have said all I am going to on this subject now, I believe I have been fished and fished well and will learn from it however nothing has changed my opinion on foot sloggers and until I see them do well at tournaments or across a table from me it won't.

[Grimtooth]

I am going to take anything you say with a mountain of salt Simo.

 

Your breakdown on FA options in your blog post regarding this topic was laughable to say the least and seeing the reasons for your last ride of the thunderwolves, it is clear that you do not understand their role or capabilities.

 

I can understand a person not agreeing with a build, based upon their own extensive research and testing, however not when I can see and read the faults that lie within your own game style on your blog.

[Grey Mage]

if it makes any difference to anyone, I'll make sure MavGirl gets disciplined in my own way ;) to get back on topic, I agree with Grey Mage and Valerian. Could someone pass the popcorn?

 

*Dutifully passes the popcorn*

 

Isnt it amazing the tactical issues that can be solved by the judicious and frequent use of landspeeders and wolf scouts?

[Simo429]

I am going to take anything you say with a mountain of salt Simo.

 

Your breakdown on FA options in your blog post regarding this topic was laughable to say the least and seeing the reasons for your last ride of the thunderwolves, it is clear that you do not understand their role or capabilities.

 

I can understand a person not agreeing with a build, based upon their own extensive research and testing, however not when I can see and read the faults that lie within your own game style on your blog.

Take it how you want, I don't write to get plaudits for the great player I am because I'm not I write because it allows me to be reflective.

 

Again the fast attack choices in the space wolf codex aren't ones that have the most points spent on in the vast majority of armies, why because we have better choices elsewhere.

 

As already said I may not be the greatest 40k player but how many thunderwolf heavy armies do you see coming top tables at British tournaments? Few because the day of the death star has gone. How many lists with sky claws come high up or swift claws for that matter? What about blob squaded fenrisian wolves? The main fast attack choice used in space wolf lists is the speeder to deal with heavy armour and to jump on objectives at the end of games and contest.

 

Perhaps this whole debate has been fruitless because I forgot a key point in all of this, the american tournament scene is very different to the british one. You play higher points limits where it becomes easier to write lists. Personally I hate playing the 1500 points that WHW put on because the lower the points limit the harder it is to write a list.

[thade]

You have elements to your army and you know their role. Its what a good list builder does.

This is where I fail as a "list builder", honestly. Unless you consider Mephiston and a Jump Team the perfect defenders for a three story 8" x 12" ruin, where the objective is on the second floor. :)

 

I build my lists to be fun with a strong side of fluffy. The last "big deal tournament" I was in was last year's Ard Boyz and my day went like this:

- First game was a major victory for me.

- Second game I tabled the guy by turn Four.

- The third game my opponent tabled me. The guy is a much better player than I am and we both knew it; before the game he went around the shop to see the standings and explained to me: "You wouldn't be at this table if you weren't very good, but - unfortunately - the way scoring works, someone else who should be third place will take first unless one of us tables the other. Otherwise we could've just messed around and split first and second."

 

If that is how tournament scoring works, it's a wonder we don't spend more time complaining about that than anything. Imagine if baseball worked like that. People would get shot. Even more cars would be flipped. (Sorry, Boston and Canada...but flipping cars over sports is dumb.) I understand that there aren't many formats that would work in a single day, and that a single day can only have so many games in it (not to mention how many tournie-style games each of us could stand in a day) but, really? This is not the environment in which I find I enjoy the game. I do fine there, but if I have to annihilate every opponent to advance, I won't be the only one that's not having fun.