PDA

View Full Version : Army of all trades



alphastealer
03-12-2007, 09:24
In my experience there is no unstoppable army or configuration.

Then why are people obsessed with having one list that tries to beat everything and then get upset when they come up against something they can't?

Think about it, if you have an all purpose army, then you will always suffer to a guy who has taken an army that is designed to kill yours, but who in turn is weak against a few others.

I play both marines and nids and like to alternate them for different play styles. I natuarally get whipped by very different armies depending on which army I play, but that is part of the fun.

Yes I can try to make them both able to take on anything, but like any real battle that assumes I know what everyone else is taking and I can ask the dice for specific results each roll.

Since I can't, the game can always go either way.

So my questions are:
1) Do you tailor your ideal army and then modify it after each loss or
2) Do you keep the same config and try it against each other race to really test it and your own skill at playing it?

NerdyOgre254
03-12-2007, 09:46
In between games i have usually changed armies. that shows you how often i play.
i tend to write up a crapton of army lists but then write up a new one if i ploay a game.

eek107
03-12-2007, 10:01
I tend to build a force that can at least hurt pretty much anything. If I find myself lacking against something in particular, then I'll try to find a way of dealing with it without compromising too much else.

So yeah, I use the same basic army most of the time but tweak it after each game. I'm only just getting to the point where I can really shake things up and play totally different lists with my IG, so I'll probably start doing that eventually.

Sister_Sin
03-12-2007, 10:57
My forces tend to be well balanced within their theme. I always have enough extra for flexibility, but only within the theme I have set them. I don't tend to change the T&O very often, preferring to get a solid feel for each configuration before trying something else.

Sister Sin

BigBossOgryn
03-12-2007, 11:11
I don't think there's anythng wrong with tailoring an army to beat everything, i think it takes great initiative and understanding of ones army to be able to at least have a fighting chance against everything.

I play Orks, the bane of which is armour, ordance toting armour to be exact, I have to find ways to overcome this problem, but without changing my overall army completely.

With certain armies its easy to create a take-all-comers list than others, that's why SM are so popular.

toxic_wisdom
03-12-2007, 12:15
"...2) Do you keep the same config and try it against each other race to really test it and your own skill at playing it?.."

Yep. I've been running the same list for over a year now - without changes based on the opponent. I personally believe in trying to build an all-comers list: there is certainly a need for skill and tactics - catering a list towards a specific enemy is too easy and requires no thought process.

LawrencePhillips
03-12-2007, 13:34
IMO an all-commers list is a list that has no obvious weakness. That is to say, there are no very simple choices ot defeat it. It should contain elements to deal with all common situations in game and so if reasonably played will stand a fighting chance of winning. It is by no means unstoppable. If fact a tailored list should normally beat a balenced list becasue all units are used to optimum effect, but will really struggle against other armies.

Personally I do both. If i'm playing a campaign I will write a tailored list to be balenced in a set of critira I set out in advance. For example if i'm playing guard and know there will be alot of nid's involved, I'll be leaning a little to the hord style with a preference of blast and template weapons but still plenty of heavier stuff. In casual gaming, I keep 1 balenced list and never stray from it. It's usually a list that has been refined overtime to be *more* balenced.

Agrip. Varenus Denter
03-12-2007, 16:57
I tend to build a force that can at least hurt pretty much anything. If I find myself lacking against something in particular, then I'll try to find a way of dealing with it without compromising too much else.

So yeah, I use the same basic army most of the time but tweak it after each game. I'm only just getting to the point where I can really shake things up and play totally different lists with my IG, so I'll probably start doing that eventually.

I do the same... but I stress that I try (and not tend) to build a punishing force - somehow, though, my luck falls short at Eldar... my win - loss against them is the worst of the lot.

Ordo Ouroboros
03-12-2007, 17:41
My all purporse army is desgin for one purpose only. To have enough options to pick out the best troops for the task ahead. If I want to use them all, then Apoc is the game for me, otherwise it's all tactical choosing for me

SevenSins
03-12-2007, 18:41
I tend to build all-comers type lists (not too good at it though) while trying to make room for some "fun" units. I also like to test new builds so various themed armies have popped up...

rintinglen
03-12-2007, 18:58
Having also found that there is no perfect list, (at least I haven't yet found it), I have come to play a more focused list that is more true to the fluff. I play Space Marines and I do mean Space Marines--models in power armor, in squads of 5 or 10, and with tac squads that are pretty much as they come out of the box. Yeah, I'll tinker a bit with the list--I've yet to firmly establish my command squad, but other wise, the only change I make is to include a librarian if I am playing an Eldar or Tzeentch army. (If it were strictly on my say so, there would be no psychic powers, but since there are, I fight fire with fire, or with psychic hood).

Locke
03-12-2007, 19:07
i just play with units that i thin are cool and sort out a type of list that will provide the best coverage for all types of oppoonets and missions.