PDA

View Full Version : What constitutes a "broken" list?



Kerill
02-06-2009, 06:19
What do you think constitutes a broken list. Before I state what I think I just want to say I hope this thread doesn't degrade into a "what is the most broken list" thread or "X army is the cheesiest in the game" (these things have been done to death and I think most regular posters could more or less write the cheesiest builds from memory even if they don't play that race), just a basic statement of what you think "broken" means.

For me its something along the lines of "an army that a typical all-comers list from any of the common warhammer races would have little or no chance against meaning that incredible luck or extreme idiocy aside the game is decided before the armies are even deployed"

Now lists will always have good and bad matchups and some armies are generally weaker or stronger than others (and all armies tend to be weaker or stronger in some aspects than others), but across the different armies in warhammer the list should be defeatable with skill, planning and a modicum of good fortune from the lady of the dice. Armies can load up to be strong in one or two phases if they like IMO, but the opponent must still be in with a chance. Heavy magic, heavy shooting, avoidance lists, heavy combat lists are all ok IMO (and different players opting for different things adds to the fun of the game overall) as long as both sides can win.

What do the rest of you think?

slingersam
02-06-2009, 06:54
It is armies that either break the fundamental rules of the game, or are under priced.

Kevlar
02-06-2009, 06:59
It is armies that either break the fundamental rules of the game, or are under priced.

Yep, if your whole army causes fear and is unbreakable they should have crappy stats.

sulla
02-06-2009, 07:47
If it beats me it must be broken... what other possible could there be?:rolleyes::D;)

Condottiere
02-06-2009, 07:59
It's like pornography - you know it when you see it.

EvC
02-06-2009, 11:13
It will beat most other armies, no matter who is using it.

Duke Georgal
02-06-2009, 11:17
When a player finds a combination of characters/magic items/units that throw off the bablance of the game and were not what the designers intended.

Dark Elves with 4 Guard and 2 Hydras come to mind.

Orcboy_Phil
02-06-2009, 11:43
A broken list is one that no matter the skill of the player has a tendancy with average luck to come out of the battle with the same result each time.

i.e. Victory for Demons, Dark Elves or Vamp counts, total lose for O&G's or Ogres.

dsw1
02-06-2009, 11:53
There is no such thing as a "broken list" in the sense of "an unstoppable force". Every list can be beaten, every list has a weakness, some weaknesses are just harder to find than others.

Admittedly you can make silly lists (Kiros being one, thorek another) but those lists can still be countered through one way or another, even if luck is involved with defeating it, and the game is a game based on luck.

ashc
02-06-2009, 11:54
I wouldn't agree with some of what has already been posted here, but I agree with Kerill's own definition, combined with Orcboy_Phil's.

Ash

Ixquic
02-06-2009, 12:14
There is no such thing as a "broken list" in the sense of "an unstoppable force". Every list can be beaten, every list has a weakness, some weaknesses are just harder to find than others.

Admittedly you can make silly lists (Kiros being one, thorek another) but those lists can still be countered through one way or another, even if luck is involved with defeating it, and the game is a game based on luck.

Just because a list can be beaten does mean it's not broken. A broken list just wins the vast majority of times but can still lose due to dice, incredible opponents or sometimes list tailoring.

Nicha11
02-06-2009, 12:31
A Broken list, as defined by the Nicha11 Dictionary:

"A List which when two opponents of equal skill meet gives one of the two players an unfair advantage."

dsw1
02-06-2009, 12:52
Just because a list can be beaten does mean it's not broken. A broken list just wins the vast majority of times but can still lose due to dice, incredible opponents or sometimes list tailoring.

In my first line I defined what I meant. "as in the sense of 'an unstoppable force'". What I meant was, nothing is "broken" in the sense of being unbeatable, not in any other sense.

By all means, some armies have unfair advantages over others (skinks Vs Ranked dwarfs etc) which is broken in the sense of "an unfair advantage" but that wasn't what I was referring to.

Ixquic
02-06-2009, 12:57
Yes but most people don't mean "unstoppable force" when they think "broken" so it's really a moot argument. The only way to truly get an unbeatable list is to take dice rolling entirely out of the equation (something demons actually do with stuff like Siren Song and the first half of the Masque's ability).

dsw1
02-06-2009, 13:03
Yes but most people don't mean "unstoppable force" when they think "broken" so it's really a moot argument. The only way to truly get an unbeatable list is to take dice rolling entirely out of the equation (something demons actually do with stuff like Siren Song and the first half of the Masque's ability).

It is a definition of "broken", it may or may not be your definition but it is still a definition, People use "broken" in that sense (or one similar) all the time. Just because some people don't think of it in that way, it doesn't mean that no-one does ;).

Oh, and just wanted to add, the dwarfs have a siren song ish rune too :) Daemons are not the only army.

Da GoBBo
02-06-2009, 13:10
A broken list has an advantage or disadvantage over the majority of possible lists, regardless of the players skill. This last part is important because some lists will beat most other lists as well, but you still need one heck of a player to pull it off.

EvC
02-06-2009, 13:21
Oh, and just wanted to add, the dwarfs have a siren song ish rune too :) Daemons are not the only army.

They're the only army that can have it multiple times, have it affect ItP units and then smack you in the flank with Flesh Hounds or a Greater Daemon, or combine with the Masque, however ;)

Ixquic
02-06-2009, 13:53
They're the only army that can have it multiple times, have it affect ItP units and then smack you in the flank with Flesh Hounds or a Greater Daemon, or combine with the Masque, however ;)

Yeah Siren Song is worse for ItP since you don't even get the choice to flee.

Corpus Festerheart
02-06-2009, 16:32
I think that "broken" is often synonimous with the word "cheese:cheese:"and one of the many definitions that can be given to it is fielding multiples of the same choice. 3 units of plaguebearers with heralds, dual hydras etc...

vorthrax
02-06-2009, 17:09
I don't believe in the concept of "broken" lists. I might describe some lists as "cheesy" though.

Shamfrit
02-06-2009, 18:18
So according to this thread...

Broken is any list you didn't balance your own to deal with?

Yay!

Seraph74
02-06-2009, 19:28
I'd give two definitions:

1. Any list with units that are defined as well above average without a commensurate point cost to balance out that advantage. Unfortunately, this is hard to sufficiently play out in a list's first release which is why 'the new list' is often overpowered (cynically, also to get you to buy new figs, but yeah).

2. Any list that encourages a player to always choose specific units over others to the point where you see a bland repetition of the same armies over and over instead of exploring diversity. A properly built list SHOULD encourage a player to make choices between equally effective options which leads to much more individual character in an army.

Malorian
02-06-2009, 19:32
To me a broken/cheesy/overpowered list is one where if you ran it against every other possible army list, against equally skilled players, then the list would win significantly more of the time than the expected 50% (I'm talk 65% or more).

slingersam
02-06-2009, 22:15
My rule wasn't against VC in general. Any army really.

Also another thing that might constitute a broken list is: when the only kryptonite for a list is bad dice roll.

W0lf
02-06-2009, 22:26
Any list that requires minmal skill to play whilst maintaning a 60%+ win ratio. If its easy towin with it likely has some balance issues.

If a bad player can beat a great player the chances are it is a broken list.

Common characteristics include;

- General immunity to psy of most forms.
- A high % of points spent in characters.
- More then 12 effective power dicue.
- Spammed option. E.G dual rares, triple/quad specials

Lord Dan
02-06-2009, 22:39
I don't believe in the concept of "broken" lists.

Denying the existence of something doesn't make it go away. :p

RulesJD
03-06-2009, 00:37
You obviously cannot get a majority consensus on the definition of a "broken" list. More importantly, this thread skirts another concept which is the broken army book.

In 6th edition, GW did an admirable job with combat resolution to create a game where mass and maneuver were the keys to playing the game. It is apparent in the current edition that they have back slid into the old hero hammer days where characters and monsters rule the day. Unfortunately, the army books are not all balanced to embrace this new paradigm.

Broken books are probably Demons and VC for now. DE in my opinion are easily breakable but not necessarily broken. One of the keys here are special characters which are the new rage. What special characters are, actually is a way to break the standard character rules by giving them extra magical weapons or abilities that often contradict what non specials may achieve. Demons and VC have probably the most vicious specials in the game. Many other books have fairly weak specials by comparison.

In addition to special characters are inflationary abilities. For instance, spellcasters are generally allowed to cast a spell only once per turn and usually not into combat. VC can now cast the same spell multiple times per turn and into combat.

Ward saves in the past have either been very rare or voidable to some extent. Wood Elves and Demons used to have a ward save only against mundane attacks and Brettonian wards were dependant on weapon strength. Suddenly, the entire demon army gets a permanent 5+ ward save (higher on some characters and specials).

There are many other examples but, the point is that armies fighting Demons and VC are starting on the back foot. Yes they can be beaten but, beating those army books is the most difficult task by an order of magnitude over other army books. In fact I play in two stores in Seattle where WFB is almost on hiatus while people wait for some balanced books or changes to make the game playable again.

On the other hand take a book like the Wood Elves. On a unit by unit basis, they are not broken. Each has strengths and weaknesses. However, the most popular wood elf lists involve skirmishing in terrain and using missile/magic attacks rather than mass and maneuver. This type of army is unique in WFB and feels more like 40K. It's extermely difficult to force a close combat. Absent a gunline, magic heavy or ethereal VC list it's hard to get more than a draw and can be rather boring to play against just like a gunline.

Broken lists usually are someones attempt to completely ignore fluff, pay for the absolute minimum core troops and just chose the most mathematically advantageous mix of specials, rares and characters. Now, if you play in a tournament with money or prizes on the line and no composition score, this is what you should expect. If you are playing a friendly pick up game, a themed campaign or a tournament with composition, then this type army list should be frowned on.

On a different note, there is also a paradigm shift in use of magic. I used to run a fairly successful dwarf list (no anvil, few warmachines) and lots of core troops with only 5 dispel dice and two dispel runes. Ever since VC and Demons came out, this list is impossible. I prefer the game when you are not forced to go heavy magic defense to have a chance to win.

Is the broken list a myth? Far too many people think otherwise to just dismiss it. As a gamer I'd prefer the GW do some better playtesting to avoid the problem. (my .02c)

Necromancy Black
03-06-2009, 00:48
Mostly for me, broken means SC.

Zarryiosiad
03-06-2009, 01:04
I would say that a "broken" list is an army list that emphasizes the use of above average components of an army to an extreme not intended by the designers, in favor of better balanced or more reasonable choices that might be available. The result of which is an army that is designed to massacre an opponent rather than provide a fair game. Every army list has a unit that if used as intended is fine, but if taken more than once becomes an unfair advantage.

The example given earlier of four units of Black Guard and two War Hydras is an excellent example, but it isn't the only one. An all Chaos Knight army, a Gunline army stacked with cannons and steam tanks, or any one of a number of army lists that crop up from time to time and have earned nicknames such as "SAD armies" or "Flying Circuses" or the like are other examples.

That being said, as long as both players agree beforehand to pull out all of the stops, then anything goes, and the arguments of what constitute a "broken" list goes out the window. If you know the landmine is there you can either choose to step on it or avoid it altogether, after all. But if one player goes into a game thinking it will be a typical Sunday morning game and the other goes in with an exploitative list, then it is perfectly fine for the victim to call a spade a spade.

Everything in the book is meant to be used, or it wouldn't be there. All that is required of you as a player is a little common-sense. Give your opponent fair warning that your army might be considered a bit one-sided as he's making his list, and allow him to reconstruct his army with that knowledge. After that, anything goes.

Zarry

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-06-2009, 05:45
I don't believe in the concept of "broken" lists. I might describe some lists as "cheesy" though.

I don't even believe in the concept of "cheese".

As far as I'm concerned, the unit choices are in the rulebook for a reason. If you want to select them, then by all means, select them. As long as you are a good sport, and a fun opponent, I will be more than happy to play your list, no matter what you may bring.

Some of the best games that I've ever played were against what could be called "cheesy" lists, because my opponent was a great guy, and we have a blast even if I did stand no possible chance of winning.

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-06-2009, 05:47
Any list that requires minmal skill to play whilst maintaning a 60%+ win ratio. If its easy towin with it likely has some balance issues.

If a bad player can beat a great player the chances are it is a broken list.

Common characteristics include;

- General immunity to psy of most forms.
- A high % of points spent in characters.
- More then 12 effective power dicue.
- Spammed option. E.G dual rares, triple/quad specials

So basically, what you're saying (in not so many words) is that Vampire Counts are broken... :rolleyes:

Lord Dan
03-06-2009, 06:21
Nah, he meant both Daemons and VC. :)

Gork or Possibly Mork
03-06-2009, 06:26
To me a broken/cheesy/overpowered list is one where if you ran it against every other possible army list, against equally skilled players, then the list would win significantly more of the time than the expected 50% (I'm talk 65% or more).

This is pretty much my take as well except I'd up that to about 75-80% because list can vary so greatly and generally have bad match-ups, deployment errors etc.

Da GoBBo
03-06-2009, 12:35
As far as I'm concerned, the unit choices are in the rulebook for a reason. If you want to select them, then by all means, select them.

I can't really agree with ye here. It's quiet abvious GW does not aim to release a well balanced army but just wants to sell miniatures, which is fine considering they are out there to make a profit. I don't really know the black guards mentioned earlier (I blasted em to pieces that ine time I met them :D), but how difficult is it to put a 0-1 or 0-2 restriction on a unit like that, if spamming em is indeed beardy? GW just couldn't be bothered because it would mean a huge drop in black guard mini's sold. It's up to us not to fall for their whicked posibilities when preparing a list and try to make a nice and balanced all commers list. At least, that's what I think.

IcedCrow
03-06-2009, 12:43
A broken list is a list designed by someone who doesn't play like you want him / her to play.

Baggers
03-06-2009, 12:48
To me a broken list is a list where there is no fun in playing with, or against. For example a friend of mine has a magic heavy army Dark Elf army that can fire 128 shots a turn. I refuse to play against that list as I know i will have lost by turn two. So I won't be having fun trying to cross that field, nor would my friend as the game is over so quickly.

There's my definition.

puppetmaster24
03-06-2009, 12:56
I think it is unfair of you people to expect GW to be able to playtest all of the possible combos that are in a book, especialy if you think that people who use beardy lists are in the minority and so are the people who care. even warseer users only make up like 30% of gamers. This also explains why GW will never listen to you, you simply are not an adequate cross section of people to give the right democratic view.

Ixquic
03-06-2009, 13:25
If you can't spend 5 minutes looking at the demon army book and not figure out what is outrageously overpowered and underpriced I don't know what to say to you. It's one thing if there's some obscure combo that gets thought up a few months after release but when something like the Masque makes it into release or Flamers for 35 points or whatever they either didn't do their job or just don't care.

Draconian77
03-06-2009, 14:19
2. Any list that encourages a player to always choose specific units over others to the point where you see a bland repetition of the same armies over and over instead of exploring diversity. A properly built list SHOULD encourage a player to make choices between equally effective options which leads to much more individual character in an army.


I agree with this sort of definition. Broken books include options that are too good/too bad compared to other things within the book itself. Whether this be units or items, etc, really doesn't matter. But GW have never really gotten this right to the best of my knowledge.

IcedCrow
03-06-2009, 14:45
I think it's more or less not the army lists being broken as much as your opponents being broken ;)

Laughingmonk
03-06-2009, 14:59
I can't really agree with ye here. It's quiet abvious GW does not aim to release a well balanced army but just wants to sell miniatures, which is fine considering they are out there to make a profit. I don't really know the black guards mentioned earlier (I blasted em to pieces that ine time I met them :D), but how difficult is it to put a 0-1 or 0-2 restriction on a unit like that, if spamming em is indeed beardy? GW just couldn't be bothered because it would mean a huge drop in black guard mini's sold. It's up to us not to fall for their whicked posibilities when preparing a list and try to make a nice and balanced all commers list. At least, that's what I think.

I would agree with you if not for the fact that executioners and witches no longer see the light of day. Black guard are so good that you don't need them.

Da GoBBo
03-06-2009, 15:45
That's because everybody has allready bought those a couple of years back. Now they want to sell black guards. Next edition they want to sell witch elves again and thus they rock and everybody buys 4 units of them. Lets hope by then they are the same hot chicks they used to be :D


I think it's more or less not the army lists being broken as much as your opponents being broken ;)

All to true.

martinmshine
03-06-2009, 15:50
A broken list is one that no matter the skill of the player has a tendancy with average luck to come out of the battle with the same result each time.

i.e. Victory for Demons, Dark Elves or Vamp counts, total lose for O&G's or Ogres.

dark elves arent amazing.
My O and G's beat him 50% of time!

sephiroth87
03-06-2009, 15:51
I haven't seen an army that I couldn't beat, but I have seen a lot that weren't fun to play.

I don't mind the special characters, but I think all of them should have special restrictions on them that force you to theme your army around them. For instance, Grimgor Ironhide is a great orc character. He can kill just about anything in the game. However, you HAVE to have black orcs and you have to run him in the unit (or risk having him die to every bolt thrower in the game). It's a drawback that makes you consider whether you should take him. But if you could run him in any unit, why in the hell would you run a regular orc warboss? The way they made Grimgor was a great idea that they didn't consistently implement with the rest of the books. But they should have.

These special characters are meant to give an army flavor, a certain style of play that you couldn't get by running regular characters. But when you don't voluntarily theme your army and you're not forced to do it, you end up with the foolishness of Kairos Fateweaver leading plaguebearers and fleshhounds. Regular characters should be the default setting for the army books, with special characters giving you less options in exchange for the unique abilities of the character. If you want to run a lord of change, that's fine to lead the flesh hound/flamer/plaguebearer army. But if you want to run the special character, you should have to run an army marked all Tzeentch.

I think this game was meant for us to have some imagination about how we build our armies. They give us unpainted, unassembled miniatures and they let our creativity decide what our armies look like and play like, within the general framework of an army book. Making the special characters better than the regular characters and not giving them any drawbacks or restrictions means people will take these almost every time. Creativity of backstory and your own characters gets ignored.

Finally, I think it's a huge cop out for GW to say that players should police themselves in the type of army they build. They won't do it, especially in tournaments. It's unfair for ME to have to play against Kairos Fateweaver 3 times in a 5 round tournament. Part of the draw of these tournaments is to see people's armies, to play against different types of lists, and to see the work they've put into them. But me having to face the exact same list three different times (with Fateweaver) is indicative of a problem.

larabic
03-06-2009, 15:57
Anything that works every time with no detriment or gives an unfair advantage via number of dice/rerolls/auto passes allowed through rules granted to few or no other armies.... kinda...

Fixer
03-06-2009, 16:11
In every asymmetric wargame there's going to be some inbalance. Some armies are going to be better at doing things than others and we often have 'rock paper scissors' type situations where some armies will crush others and be crushed themselves by specific forces.

The point is, that some armies are simply better than others. Those that say there's nothing unbalanced or cheesy in Warhammer have to rely on an assumption that the game is perfectly balanced accross the board. Back when the previous Dark Elves book was released we were told it was perfectly balanced. When it was brielfy updated with cheaper Spearmen, better Ld on cold ones, better armor on executioner the list was made a better army with nothing being made worse, yet it was still said to be perfectly balanced with everyone else by the people that come up with the 'no cheese argument'.

Fact is that Cheese exists in warhammer. It's not a matter of whether or not an army is cheesy but instead how cheesy that force is against the baseline 'balanced competetive' lists.

Some armies are better than others because they have no weaknesses, have the same type of troops as other forces only with better stats or cheaper. Sometimes it can because they have options that fundamentally break how battles are played (looking at you Mr. Dwarf anvil guy).

For me the true hallmark of truely overpowered broken cheesy list is one that can be played the exact same way against almost every opponent and still win. One that perhaps has only one weakness or way that it can be beaten, or relies on luck rather than unit positioning, timing, combined arms tactics or planning to beat. One that is hard to lose with unintentionally once you grasp the basics.

Nell2ThaIzzay
04-06-2009, 05:42
A broken list is a list designed by someone who doesn't play like you want him / her to play.

This is really what it comes down to in the end.

I've been called "cheesy" for the simple fact that I play Vampire Counts, and I focus on the magic phase.

The magic phase is FUN to me, and that's what I want to focus on. It's the most appealing, that is why I chose the army.

Firstly, I don't have any problems with any army I play against. The reason is that I give my opponent the same benefit of the doubt. That he's playing a particular army / build because for whatever reasons, that's what appeals to him. Whether it be the fluff, or the gameplay focus, or what have you, that army appeals to that person. Therefore, I do not have a problem with any particular style someone wants to play, whether it be a particular unit built, list, army, phase, whatever.

To me, the diversity in the way the armies play is what makes this game amazing. The diversity is about the best part of the game for me. I'm actually rather disappointed that I still haven't even played against every race in the game - I still have yet to face Dark Elves or Tomb Kings.

It becomes my responsibility as a player, and an army general, to gameplan according to my opponent and the army they are running. There are particular armies and builds that I don't fare very well against, but most of them come from the fact that the particular strengths of those armies and builds counter the strengths of my strengths. That doesn't make those particular armies BROKEN, it just means that they are able to take advantage of my armies. And when you have 16 armies, and all of the diversity between them that we have, certain armies having the edge over particular others is bound to happen. And it's not a bad thing.

I take exception to the fact that I am considered a cheesy player because I play Vampire Counts, and focus on the magic phase. I take exception to people telling me I'm cheesy because they think the game should be played through the combat phase, and that alone. I don't. I think that there are 4 phases to the game, and all of them are equally viable to focus on.

I also take exception to the thought that the Vampire Counts list is inherently cheesy.

I haven't played as much in the past year as I would have liked, but I've recently come across a good gaming community in my town, and have gotten in a few games there. My Vampire Counts are 0-3 there. 2 losses of my own, once under the control of another player (our group includes the potential of an army swap, meaning you swap armies with your opponent for a game). The list has lost to Ogre Kingdoms, Lizardmen, and Daemons of Chaos.

The Ogre Kingdoms and Chaos losses were under my watch, the Lizardmen was when I swapped armies with my opponent.

As far as the Chaos being considered "cheesy", I didn't feel my Chaos opponent was cheesy in the least bit. He had a pretty tough list, but the reason why he beat me was because he outplayed me on the table, and for no other reason. His list was not too good for me to defeat. He was better at tactics than I was.

Calling a list "cheesy", "beardy", or "broken", in my opinion is a cop out, and a natural excuse to take away from your opponent. I've played against armies and lists that would be considered "cheesy" by the likes around here, but I credit my defeats in those games to my opponent simply being better than me, not because of the list. In all of those games, there were things that I could have done to defeat those lists that I didn't capitolize on, or just plain didn't do.

I refuse to take credit away from an opponent who outplayed my by calling his list "cheesy", no matter how tough of a list it may have been. In every list I've played, there's ALWAYS been a way around it to win. One that didn't rely on extreme luck with the dice in one way or another.

Grimstonefire
04-06-2009, 10:28
I think it simply comes down to one thing; rules/ profiles not being properly priced.

Seriously, I am a firm believer that points tweaks on all broken things would make a massive change.

GW have got into a habit of messing around with army race rules and deciding arbitrarily which ones are now free when they should have increased costs here and there across the whole range.

Daemon core units for instance should really be at least +2 points imo. They are an elite army and should be priced accordingly.

You can have all the special rules/ 'ard profiles you want, but you must pay for them.

PeeKay
04-06-2009, 13:34
It could also be that we complain about a unit and GW try to readdress the balance?

For example, less people take Executioners because they are to expensive compared to Black Guard. GW in the next DE book make them half the price to balance the book.

They do not neccessary make the change for profit (happy side effect) but to please their customers.

ashc
04-06-2009, 13:37
It could also be that we complain about a unit and GW try to readdress the balance?

For example, less people take Executioners because they are to expensive compared to Black Guard. GW in the next DE book make them half the price to balance the book.

They do not neccessary make the change for profit (happy side effect) but to please their customers.

Except they also go and make Black Guard such a good choice, there is no point in taking executioners.

*facepalm*.

jax40kplyr1
04-06-2009, 14:40
Couple things to consider about defining lists as cheesy/broken:

1. Abilities/Combinations within the codex to allow players to maximize an almost unbeatable combo to win. Examples: Daemon Leadership Bomb, Unstoppable anvil or EOTG abilities, shadestars, etc. etc.
2. Playing new codexes against older ones from different editions - there will be some disparity! Ogres vs. Daemons or VC - yes there is a large time gap, evolutions of the game, etc. etc. from when they were written and designed.
3. I honestly believe that consideration for codex writing is based off of sales/new models being released. Yes I know they love the game, but they are also a business. Businesses need more sales. Economics 101 - make your new product more attractive to sell more. Make more money.
4. Some players are ultra-competitive - they want to win. Its the same in any sport or hobby. When someone fails their lookout sir roll, or takes a cannonball to a Steam tank on turn 1 and starts yelling, screaming or just walks away - that tells me something about them. I don't think there is really a way to prevent powergamers from the game.
5. Yes it is true any list can technically beat any other list, but lets be real: several armies have almost no shot against other ones. In those cases, don't play them. If your in a tournament or something where you have to - try your best but don't be hurt when you lose. 12 PD VC army against a 4 PD WoC army - yes you'll kill some, but expect to have alot raised back up which you can't stop.
6. Finally - if you look at alot of the "broken" lists - there aren't usually a whole lot of models. Bad luck does happen to them sometimes. I ran a pretty nasty Daemon list (yes khorne dogs, flamers, plaguebearers - the whole deal) - first turn of the game, my Keeper of Secrets miscasts on 2 dice, then rolls double 1s. Poof gone. You can fail lookout Sir rolls, whiff in combat - my Slann miscasts 3-4 times a game now! Eventually people get tired of playing those lists and move on to something else.
Just my two cents....

Frankly
04-06-2009, 15:52
A broken list is a list designed by someone who doesn't play like you want him / her to play.

I'm with this guy.

Drachen_Jager
04-06-2009, 17:49
IMO a broken list is one where the game balance is so far out of whack that player skill is not as much of a factor as army list is.

For example, if you create one of the killer builds for Demons and gave that to a mediocre player. Put him down against a group of top players with each of the other army books to make a list from, if the mediocre player wins many/most of the games the army book is broken.

Vice versa of course for broken/bad books (a top player would lose over half his games vs mediocre players).

Cragum
05-06-2009, 01:13
really in my eyes its an army built under a purpose to strengthen one thing in particular. people who can sit and plan a perfect list so everything has a method of stopping anything or crushing one of your units in your army, even your strongest. i Have so many times found myself against a kind of tyranid hive mind army where the heart and nasty soul of the army is bar impossible to get to.

things such as i had tonight in a battle where vilitcha level 4 wizard who can use a whole lore set of choices involving probably one of the nastyest spell known to the lores backed up by two other level 2s i found that my own little two night goblin level 2s had nothing to even scave the army, being as he had so many dispell dice to throw around that i couldnt even get in a decent smash except for one kill on a mauraders unit.

but like people have said you just need to find the weakness and for that what i found was breaking the army up away so i could target a wizard who was protected by the fact he had two larger units saving him being shot at by war machines.

but thats why i love orcs and goblins. becaue i know full well not one person in this wolrd can tell you thatr they know how to get around a orc army involving fanatics. ive held an army of bret knights alone for 3 turns not moving due to the fact my fanatics we doing the twist infron of them to the point my fanatics went straight through one of them with a gentle magical nudge.

at the end of the day when i face a broken list or anything ratrher broken and i kill something i quite sad to myself inside my head will cheer like and army just found out the enemy conceded! because its that satisfaction believe me when you see a fanatic go through something what cost near 400 points and you essentially take away 2 wounds from it with 25 points!

or as i have seen before a unit of empire knights brains melting as gaze of gork on the first turn seing all 6 possibly able to die doing sso in beauty and making them flee.