The most competitive army possible.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I suppose statistically certain weapons or units can generate the desired results more often, though in an all comers enviroment this is much harder to acheive and I should think that generally its best to move with what suits that person the best in order to make every unit worth its salt! No good trying to use a unit you dislike as you won't get as much use out of it

[Brother Gathurn]

I don't know about that. It's fair to say that I hate Rhino's. I hate paying extra for them, how they look, there lack of useful guns, and there tendency to break down on terrain. But I must admit, there effective! SO effective that I very rarely take a tac squad that doesn't have a rhino to drive it around.

 

I'd say it's definitively important to do what you like best, but some things are just more competitive than others. Although the marine codex is much better about making every unit useful than some of the codices out there.

[thade]

I don't know about that. It's fair to say that I hate Rhino's. I hate paying extra for them, how they look, there lack of useful guns, and there tendency to break down on terrain. But I must admit, there effective! SO effective that I very rarely take a tac squad that doesn't have a rhino to drive it around.

 

I'd say it's definitively important to do what you like best, but some things are just more competitive than others. Although the marine codex is much better about making every unit useful than some of the codices out there.

Tthis isn't really what I was talking about. :) I mean, I also hate Rhinos for the reasons you put forward...but they still fit my play-style, so I use them. My feelings on them don't mean as much as that.

 

There are players who do very well for themselves with foot-slogging lists, all jump-pack lists, all bike lists, or even all land raider lists. Rhinos are good for some of us, but they are hardly required.

[Something Wycked]

This isn't really what I was talking about. :) I mean, I also hate Rhinos for the reasons you put forward...but they still fit my play-style, so I use them. My feelings on them don't mean as much as that.

 

There are players who do very well for themselves with foot-slogging lists, all jump-pack lists, all bike lists, or even all land raider lists. Rhinos are good for some of us, but they are hardly required.

Exactly this. If Rhinos are effective for you then they fit your play style whether you like them or not, and that's really the main point here: build your army out of units that fit your play style, and you will have a more effective, more competitive army than picking up an "optimized" net list that isn't your play style.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

Perhaps I should have been more clear..what I mean to say is that trying to use a unit that doesnt match with your playstyle, (say you prefer melee units but have heard so much about sternguard you decide you're going to include them just because of this)

 

Then you might well have trouble using said sternguard as they don't fit with your melee theme and you're including them on other people's basis'

 

Its just an example, but my point is really that using units that you dont feel fit into your play style can be negative, though i'll admit I would use some units I wouldnt be overly fond of (be it asthetically or fluffily etc) if they fitted my play style..I hope that makes sense?

[Droma]

Some of the best advice I've read has come from Dash of Pepper, formally of Dakka Dakka. Here is a link to a blog article he wrote that should be of some use.

 

http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.com/20...tournament.html

[TyrionTheImp]

I stopped reading that Dash's article when he only listed a few mechanized armies as those you have to beat.

 

Being able to beat mechanized crap will win you majority of your games, but the fact of the matter is you have to be prepared for EVERYTHING from Land Raider spam to Green Tide. Handling mech is easy, it's being able to handle mech AND the outliers is what separates netlisters from the truly competitive folk. Those outliers can mean a loss and that loss can mean the difference between placing and not.

 

With that said, creating the pinnacle of a competitive list begins with determining your playstyle, then determining the book that matches that playstyle best (or which army you like the models best for that can do the playstyle), then determining which units in that book can help you achieve the goal of what you want. Most 5th edition codices have enough powerful units in them to warrant being able to take in an army, so long as the army is constructed with that unit in mind. Heck, I've seen Legion of the Damned used to great effect recently and was shocked, but the list was made to cater towards using them.

 

This is where points efficiency comes in, once you've figured out which units you feel you REALLY want to use and the playstyle, you can then put in units that are more points efficient to fill in the gaps. What does your list NEED that the units you want can't bring in, and which units can bring what you need in for the most efficient points (barring slots that you need for the units you want to bring).

 

For instance, if I wanted to take Sternguard in my elite slots (I do like Sternguard), that removes the possibility of bringing a common choice such as the Rifleman dreadnaught as long range support. I might need that gap filled, and I could do a few things:

 

Typhoons in my FA slots.

 

Devastators in the HS slots.

 

Combi-predators in the HS slots.

 

Use my sternguard and get the (cheaper than devastators) heavy weapons and combat squad.

 

Get a Master of the Forge and use him to get Riflemen in HS slots.

 

Then I would weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each. Like, if I Bring Typhoons I can't bring MM/HF speeders or MM attack bikes. Devastators are often considered too costly. Predators can be stunned and flanked easily, etc. Sometimes this has to do with points considerations, or perhaps things like how much other targets of similar type (vehicle, infantry, etc) do I have on the board? What is the effect I'm trying to achieve with this army? Do I really need long range support( (With a C:SM army, yes you probably need long range support)

 

Of course, my primary army is Deathwing, and that's pretty straightforward (MORE TERMINATORS WHAHAHA), but when building a C:SM army I find myself thinking a lot more often about these things and meshing each element to fit together and I'm usually happy with what comes out the other end.

 

For some reason when I make a C:GK Army though, I end up making a Mordrak Terminator army...I guess I just like guys in the best armor available walking around and blowing stuff up, but that's my playstyle. ^_^

[Mysticaria]

Tyrion,

 

I pretty much agree with everything here (except the Deathwing part... B) )

 

Seriously... you need to bottle this post and keep it handy. Your explanation of list building and how unit roles and points efficiency play into that is great.

 

-Myst

[DarkGuard]

Can't we just sticky this thread? I mean, there's been a lot of interesting and fantastic posts here about list building, maybe we should compile them :D.

[thade]

I'd love to compile them, actually. I could brush up my tactica-esque post and include the other thoughts we've had here. Should probably post it in a more suitably named thread, so it gets more exposure. :D Not sure it warrants a sticky though.

[TyrionTheImp]

So glad my post was so well received. :P

 

I'm a firm believer that most units in any 5th Edition Codex can in fact be used if the army around it supports it, though there are exceptions, like with the Space Wolf codex.

 

I have no reason to believe Bloodclaws, Skyclaws, or Swiftclaws have any sort of use, and the options most people use (you know what they are) are so terribly undercosted that it's insane not to use such choices. Yes you can build any sort of army with C:SW, but really the best choices are going to lead to similar armies, and it's why SW are so popular amongst netlisters and WAAC people, but not necessarily good players. Of course, the lists are so forgiving it attracts those types too. Imperial Guard is similar, but I also feel there is still more variety with what IG can do than Space Wolves even though Melta Chimera Vets are that good.

 

All the other 5th Edition books with the exception of maybe post FAQ Tyranids all are bursting with strong units and can accommodate many different play styles, some better than others obviously, but really there are no "bad" units in any of them that I'm sure if one really wanted to use could make a brilliant competitive list with them.

 

Also, what's wrong with Deathwing? :D

[Tanhausen]

I think a common mistake people do when comparing codex is "oh, but X is cheaper at A, and Y is better at B"... duh, that's why they have DIFFERENT codex!

 

Or did you only expect to have 3 different units per codex and the rest be the same?

 

In your example, Skyclaws...I'm sure they can fit in a competitive build, specially since SW don't that many FA options. Just don't expect them to work equal or better than Blood Angels.

 

And there is just one thing wrong with Deathwing: so many non 1st legion and so few bullets...bring on the fists and hammers!

[TyrionTheImp]

Skyclaws have scout stats, and sure they're cheaper for it but do you need counter assault elements when you've got Grey Hunters? I don't think so and Land Speeders are just as good in a SW army as any other, and lets not forget the dreaded TWC. Space Wolves have plenty of options in FA.

 

As for X being cheaper in codex A than it is in codex B, mostly that's Games Workshop thinking "Oops, we dropped the ball on that in the last codex!" and instead of sticking with it they change it for the benefit of later books. This has little effect on changing the playstyles of the books though. Sure BA Devastators are cheaper, but they're competing with Dreads AND preds now.

 

This only applies when books are released in the same Edition though. Different edition points values are merely because the older books played a different game from a current edition and haven't been brought to match yet. Regardless, Dark Angels still got shafted on a lot of things but thanks to that update we only have to live with some of them.

[thade]

Skyclaws have scout stats, and sure they're cheaper for it but do you need counter assault elements when you've got Grey Hunters? I don't think so and Land Speeders are just as good in a SW army as any other, and lets not forget the dreaded TWC. Space Wolves have plenty of options in FA.

This is actually the reason that Skyclaws have Scout stats instead of Marine stats...because you have Grey Hunters. What can the Skyclaws do that the GH cannot? They have Jump Packs; they have significant backfield mobility and can assist any GH (or what have you) unit that's mired or in an assault they won't win alone (either fast enough or at all). I'm not going to do the math on this, but an assault team leaping in to a tactical squad's rescue is I bet close in effectiveness to a skyclaw pack leaping in to help a GH pack...to within several wounds.

 

As for X being cheaper in codex A than it is in codex B, mostly that's Games Workshop thinking "Oops, we dropped the ball on that in the last codex!" and instead of sticking with it they change it for the benefit of later books. This has little effect on changing the playstyles of the books though. Sure BA Devastators are cheaper, but they're competing with Dreads AND preds now.

People always say this, but in reality I'm pretty sure GW does play test their game and every model in it. The trick is they can test every model but not every playstyle; it's constantly being tested by the rest of us in weird ways they'd never think to...much like software. Think about how many patches something like World of Warcraft has been through that were fixes and not only content additions.

[TyrionTheImp]

People always say this, but in reality I'm pretty sure GW does play test their game and every model in it. The trick is they can test every model but not every playstyle; it's constantly being tested by the rest of us in weird ways they'd never think to...much like software. Think about how many patches something like World of Warcraft has been through that were fixes and not only content additions.

 

You're correct and that's why I believe GW needs some sort of outside opinion. Problem is there's so many differing opinions it could come down to who can whine the loudest really. Everyone has a thought of what 40k should be, and often times they conflict with others. However, even with that it still wouldn't be perfect, World of Warcraft has had years and years of patching and fixing, but every patch some classes are almost always better than others, even though they have a Public Test Realm going.

 

Thankfully 40k has seemed to have avoided a lot of the bad mistakes that have come from GW's lack of outside opinion, unlike Fantasy whose 8th Edition rules are a joke. I can certainly forgive them for making C:BA devastators cheaper, so long as the core rule set doesn't become buckets of dice rolling with no other skill involved other than measuring and pushing trays.

 

Also, Skyclaws and GH > Assault Marines and Tacticals, no doubt about it, but Grey Hunters are decent enough in assault to not really need it, if a squad of GH needs help in assault, charge more grey hunters into them, really, you probably have enough to do that. Land speeders offer fast deep striking melta, Skyclaws add...more bodies and CC attacks? Yay? If they weren't BS3, my opinions would be different of course as they can take Melta, but as it stands, meh.

 

Goodness getting off topic here.

[thade]

You're correct and that's why I believe GW needs some sort of outside opinion. Problem is there's so many differing opinions it could come down to who can whine the loudest really. Everyone has a thought of what 40k should be, and often times they conflict with others. However, even with that it still wouldn't be perfect, World of Warcraft has had years and years of patching and fixing, but every patch some classes are almost always better than others, even though they have a Public Test Realm going.

The problem sets here are massive; too many variables for even a half dozen people to all keep straight in their heads at once. Balancing games that large to perfection while still keeping each class/army sufficiently different is basically impossible. The one game that I felt ever accomplished this was the original Starcraft...and it did this after like it's fifth or seventh year post-release.

 

Thankfully 40k has seemed to have avoided a lot of the bad mistakes that have come from GW's lack of outside opinion, unlike Fantasy whose 8th Edition rules are a joke.

We can't discuss this here, of course, but I respectfully disagree; I like the new rules.

 

 

Also, Skyclaws and GH > Assault Marines and Tacticals, no doubt about it, but Grey Hunters are decent enough in assault to not really need it, if a squad of GH needs help in assault, charge more grey hunters into them, really, you probably have enough to do that.

Careful. The benefit that Skyclaws have is mobility. Sure, you can charge in another pack of GH...if they're close enough. Skyclaws have a higher chance of getting there, and as they're not a Troop choice they're by nature more expendable. They have their uses. Most units do.

[nurglephill]

One of the best things about GW is the rules are free flowing and not set in stone. They are ALWAYS encouraging us to change things, try things and write into them about it. Which means if you think something is 'broken' (why does everybody say that about every new codex?) you can try your own fix to make it work. While I agree playing new people in stores is not the time to be say 'oh by the way I am using my own version of the rules' with regular opponents I don't see why you cannot. Which means most of the times people moan about the rules they can just change them, you don't need GW permission or a new codex to allow you too.

 

It is our hobby to do with as we like. Which is cool. (Like heavy plasma guns in a Death Guard Havoc squad which is cool so rules be damned.)

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I think its interesting how GW chose to release different codex's at different times.. I mean each codex is generally released quite a long time after the previous release and often leads to a whole load of players jumping on the bandwagon of that army. Why not just make a large release part way through the edition with new a codex for each army at the same time and then later erratas and faqs to make updates on various aspects?

 

I will however say that some of the changes we see can give us a good idea of what could happen to our marines in the future, an example:

 

I believe BA devastators are currently better than regular C:SM devastators (which seems silly), i wouldnt be surprised if C:SM devastators take up a similar set of stats so that they are more viable..

 

 

As for playtesting etc, well its almost impossible to perfect everything until you toss it to the public, after all some people think in odd ways and can create lists or playstyles previously unimaginable. Only then can certain aspects become uncovered that need fixing or clarifying.

[Master Melta]

Why not just make a large release part way through the edition with new a codex for each army at the same time and then later erratas and faqs to make updates on various aspects?

 

Because that would sell less and GW is all about the almighty dollar/pound.

 

It's just the way of it with them.

 

I'm hooked and have a well qualified spending appropriation commitee at home to keep me in check.

 

:)

[Meatman]

Why be competitive when you can be fun!

 

 

Quoted for truth.

 

It's a game, if I start getting competitive, I start getting frustrated and even angry if things don't go my way. Games that aren't fun aren't worth playing IMO. Especially with this price tag :(

[DarkGuard]

Why be competitive when you can be fun!

 

 

Quoted for truth.

 

It's a game, if I start getting competitive, I start getting frustrated and even angry if things don't go my way. Games that aren't fun aren't worth playing IMO. Especially with this price tag :rolleyes:

 

That's the very reason I've started to shake up my lists. I won the Xmas tournament at my store and since then I've been referred to as the "Champion of the store". But I let that get to me and felt I had to win all the time and wasn't enjoying myself. Now I may not have as good a list on paper but I'm enjoying myself a lot more. Competitiveness is all right, but it's overrated, having fun is the important thing, and is, in fact, the major major rule of 40K.

[thade]

Personally...it is FAR cooler to win with a list that's weird and unique than it is to win with a cookie cutter internet build. And it earns you more respect too.

[Brother Rathul]

Personally...it is FAR cooler to win with a list that's weird and unique than it is to win with a cookie cutter internet build. And it earns you more respect too.

 

Agreed. Perhaps just using it as a resource or inspiration?

[Corby]

I recommend checking out the army lists for this years 40k European team championships (found here http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=19 ) , All of the players attending are of a fantastic skill level and have very interesting amazing army lists which don't conform to what many on internet deem the best on many fronts (Especially the army list run by Ben Mohilie , team USA's captain which is a strong all rounder marine list with a load of tactical marines), while copying another individuals army list , isn't the best practice , copying the basic template of a good army and inserting units which suit your style of play , can make an effective army list. I do realise the team dynamic of the Etc changes how certain lists play , But analysing several of the attending marine army lists and trying to identify its strengths and weaknesses can make for a valuable list building experience.

[TyrionTheImp]

I would never ever listen to anything coming from someone in the ETC for competitive advice. They have their own FAQs which change the game drastically and often have comp rules. It's not competitive if you're shooting yourselves in the foot to play now is it?

 

"No special characters are allowed" yeah, shooting yourself in the foot to play.