PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone play with a basic army list anymore



AM1640
30-11-2011, 16:52
Hi I just watched a 1000 point battle report of Deathwing vs Necrons. The Necron player had 2 units of warriors, some wraiths, a couple of character models, and some immortals (Give or take). The Deathwing player had 4 "squads" of 5 terminators with heavy flame throwers and other mixed equipment and Belial. Admittedly the necron player made several basic mistakes such as deep striking a warrior unit in front of a terminator unit but I don't see the tactics involved in using an all terminator "army". Roll to make 2+ saves (he lost 1 terminator for the whole game) move forward shoot everything in sight, charge and rip apart everything in close combat with terminators or named character.
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

radical ed
30-11-2011, 16:57
actually the deathwing player had the more basic list. His termis were all troops. so actually the necron player had the more tricked out army.

Gooner
30-11-2011, 17:05
Lol this is the reason no one I game with plays 40k.

The game can be fun if you choose not to be a D bag, but most people dont choose that.

I recently started a Tau army and OMG im goign to use firewarriors and not min max the **** out of the army. If everyone chose to play a legit army the game could be a lot more fun.

Also about named chars, I find it redic how common they have become in 40k. Why is marneus calgar leading every skirmish in the know universe? among other special chars.

Rated_lexxx
30-11-2011, 17:08
Lol this is the reason no one I game with plays 40k.

The game can be fun if you choose not to be a D bag, but most people dont choose that.

I recently started a Tau army and OMG im goign to use firewarriors and not min max the **** out of the army. If everyone chose to play a legit army the game could be a lot more fun.

Also about named chars, I find it redic how common they have become in 40k. Why is marneus calgar leading every skirmish in the know universe? among other special chars.

Because it's a game.

I find most people IRL are not that bad. They will make suggestions but don't put you down for what you have

On the interwebs that is a different story

ColShaw
30-11-2011, 17:24
I run an IG infantry army which has the following breakdown:

2 HQs (CCS and Commissar Lord); ~10% of points
No Elites
1 Fast Attack (Rough Riders); 5% of points
1 Heavy Support (Griffon); 3% of points

The remainder of the army is in Troops.

Surprisingly effective.

Radium
30-11-2011, 17:25
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

Yes, the Deathwing player did.

Besides that: probably not. But I don't think anyone ever did to be honest...

Pyriel
30-11-2011, 17:28
... i rephrase your question:
does anyone play with one of these super-unralistic armylists that GW considers fluffy and *dont look like a real army*?

i want my games to avoid "dissociated" themes; whatever happens in the game, i know the game cant be realistic, but i like being able to "logicaly imagine it". imho thats the "true meaning of fluff".

and what is a logical way of how an army is built?
1. every real soldier(=model) idealy looks the same. i he doesnt look the same, he is penalised and tries real hard to look identical to everyone else.

2. every major unit has a common way of operations (i.e. all are mechanized, all are infantry, all are tanks, all are spec forces, you get the drill) with the exception of some very small attachments.

3. every squad idealy has as much firepower (via special wargear such as grenades and tons of special weapon) as possible. In real life "rifleman" specialty isnt that common.

4. every squad breaks down to smaller squads-in general, preference is on "small flexible units" as the army says.
the army does this a lot, and marines take that "up to eleven" to the point that marine-based "multiple small units with spec weapon spam" isnt even LEGAL by games workshop standards.


I REALISE that from a modelling perspective this looks lame and boring. i UNDERSTAND it. well, i am a wargamer who has been in the military and just happens to also be interested in military history, with some small role playing games experience. notice how i dont say "modeller" anywhere. so i could care less about how boring it looks modeling-wise. the most logical-per-the-setting,non-metagaming, "proper to roleplaying", fluffy armylists are "mechanized multiple small units special/heavy weapons spam".

they are boring to model and look. get over it; an army is impressive only by how everyone looks indentical and motionless when arrayed in ranks, not by "how much variety" exists. individualism is heavily punished. I know guys who were forced to repeat standing attention and gun drills so that they *look the same* to everyone else that their ligaments were hurt ( the guy next to me even torn his meniscus. its either "look the same" or "go home") .notice how even a codex marines battle company spams the exact same units for each slot/tacs for troops, assault for fast attack, devastators for support, and dreadnoughts for elites. thats how an army looks like, fellas(bolters aside-real armies dont spam that many pistols/rifles, each 4-man "team" usualy has a genade launcher AND a heavy weapon, each squad is comprised, depending on force/country, by 2-3 teams, hence 4-6 heavy/special weapons per squad, not just 2) ; spam the same units.thats how its done realisticaly.

if you want an army that is nice to model and look at the tabletop, that is GREAT. do it, i encourage you; do what you like. but YOU are the unfluffy one, doing something no commander would choose to do just for it to "look nice". real armies look boring and all the same. you have every right to say that my way is boring; you should, in all honesty, keep doing what you like. i say your way is unrealistic(just like i admit my way is boring). and if one of these two characteristics is unfluffy (boring or unrealistic) then guess which one.

Juggernaut101
30-11-2011, 17:33
Hi I just watched a 1000 point battle report of Deathwing vs Necrons. The Necron player had 2 units of warriors, some wraiths, a couple of character models, and some immortals (Give or take). The Deathwing player had 4 "squads" of 5 terminators with heavy flame throwers and other mixed equipment and Belial. Admittedly the necron player made several basic mistakes such as deep striking a warrior unit in front of a terminator unit but I don't see the tactics involved in using an all terminator "army". Roll to make 2+ saves (he lost 1 terminator for the whole game) move forward shoot everything in sight, charge and rip apart everything in close combat with terminators or named character.
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

:eyebrows:
Terminators ARE troops in a DW army...
While I LOVE hvy. flamers they aren't terribly good. How did they get into range? How did the DW player manage to loose just a single terminator? There were FOUR units walking around ... ever heard of "concertrating your fire"? Somehow I get the impression that pretty much eveything the Necron player did was a mistake.
That DW army is far from being :cheese: and it actually takes way more of that funny thing called "tactics" to run such a low model count force because every single mistake you make (no matter how small) will bite you in the ass.

Juggernaut

Pyriel
30-11-2011, 17:37
i will also point out how, point-for-point, terminators are MORE vulnerable to rifles and other small arms than a simple marine. they have 200% a marine's staying power against them; and 270% a marine's cost. hence, more vulnerable.

in a simpler manner: the same ammount of rifle shots that would kill 10 marines, would kill ONLY 5 terminators. small difference: 5 terminators are more expensive than 10 marines.

The bearded one
30-11-2011, 17:42
On the other hand it will take more heavy weaponry to take down several thunderhammer-stormshield terminators, than standard marines.

Surgency
30-11-2011, 17:42
:eyebrows:
Terminators ARE troops in a DW army...
While I LOVE hvy. flamers they aren't terribly good. How did they get into range? How did the DW player manage to loose just a single terminator? There were FOUR units walking around ... ever heard of "concertrating your fire"? Somehow I get the impression that pretty much eveything the Necron player did was a mistake.
That DW army is far from being :cheese: and it actually takes way more of that funny thing called "tactics" to run such a low model count force because every single mistake you make (no matter how small) will bite you in the ass.

Juggernaut

this times a lot really.

In the current ruleset, there are more than enough things to make a mockery of terminator armor, so DW terminators are significantly weaker than they were. That should have been a relatively easy with for the Necrons player, who apparently doesn't understand how to deal with Terminator armed Marines that only move 6 a turn, and took the weakest heavy weapon they can have.

Drakcore Bloodtear
30-11-2011, 17:45
I do, 6 troop slots every time. :p

But hasn't this always been the case, it has where i've played, most armies need only 3-4 troop choices and thats how people play.

Vipoid
30-11-2011, 17:51
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

Out of interest, do you mean 75-80% model wise, or points wise?

With nids, I've used a 1500pt army that consists mainly of gaunts and tervigons, along with venomthropes, hive guard and a Prime. I imagine that would be mostly troops points wise, and certainly mostly troops model wise, although i'm not sure you'd consider tervigons 'basic troops'.

I also have a necron army, which I'm determined is going to remain footslogging (None of these whippersnappers and their new fangled Ghost Arcs). I'm currently trying several variations, which all consist primarily of basic troops, and a couple of lords/crypteks in each squad.

Pyriel
30-11-2011, 17:56
guys, the core of what he says is "no repetition". so no dual identical powerful special buffs/independent characters like crypteks/etc. he wants a "simple force made by units all over the place". read last white dwarf's battle report with sicarius' half company and footdar? thats what he means.

lemme tell ya, these armies are super unfluffy. real sicarius and real eldar would avoid such armies like the plague. sicarius would bring transports since the environment allowed it and he needs to direct his powerful company wisely, and eldar would bring hardy transports or wraith units r jetbike units to avoid necessary deaths, as a fragile race in its last days.

white dwarf armies and reports bring unrealistic, UNFLUFFY variety to showcase models for players to buy. that doesnt make these armies fluffy.

Lord Damocles
30-11-2011, 18:00
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.
Both of those armies sound Troop heavy (Deathwing squads with Belial, Warriors and Immortals).

Neither is likely to have any significant number of Melta weapons (if any). Practically every army will have at least some replication (try NOT to replicate weapon loadouts across multiple Deathwing squads).

Neither would be considered (by most) to be the 'army/trick of the week'.

And neither Necrons nor Dark Angels (Deathwing or otherwise) generally allow you to steamroll over your opponant without thinking.

IcedCrow
30-11-2011, 18:13
I choose to field large numbers of "troops". I also use scenarios that encourage this. In our campaign, you must spend 25% of your points on "troops".

Vipoid
30-11-2011, 18:32
guys, the core of what he says is "no repetition". so no dual identical powerful special buffs/independent characters like crypteks/etc. he wants a "simple force made by units all over the place". read last white dwarf's battle report with sicarius' half company and footdar? thats what he means.


Ah, I see. I'd thought he just meant armies that comprise 4/5 basic troops, and that don't spam meltas or similar.

Erazmus_M_Wattle
30-11-2011, 18:40
I run a fairly basic list on a regular basis. I use Iron Warriors and berserkers and when it pays off it's immensely satisfying however one of my regular opponents is s Guard player. So it doesn't pay off very often. He uses mostly basic platoons and that's a lot of las-guns and auto cannons coming my way.

MrFlutterPie
30-11-2011, 18:58
As a long time ork player (est. 1998) I have always gone with the motto "boyz before toyz"

Back in 3rd I would at least 4 troop choices minimum.

Now a days I still run 4+ troop choices.

Rick Blaine
30-11-2011, 18:59
Did OP just say that Deathwing takes no skill to play? :wtf:

Juggernaut101
30-11-2011, 19:10
Did OP just say that Deathwing takes no skill to play? :wtf:

Yep. Tells you everything you need to know really.

But of course he is right. It really doesn't take any skill when the enemy thinks it is a smart move to DS right in front of a ******* DW squad:rolleyes:

RandomThoughts
30-11-2011, 20:20
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

No, because the way GW designs their games, that's the surefire way to a guaranteed loss. I play Eldar, I'm already at a disadvantage just for the race I chose, I don't need to handicap myself further. And what's more, basic infantry is pretty boring to play with...


The game can be fun if you choose not to be a D bag, but most people dont choose that.

So, does that mean I'm a ******, too, because I don't play a (completely unfluffy, by the way) horde of Guardians?


real armies look boring and all the same. you have every right to say that my way is boring; you should, in all honesty, keep doing what you like. i say your way is unrealistic(just like i admit my way is boring). and if one of these two characteristics is unfluffy (boring or unrealistic) then guess which one.

I get your point, even though I kind of disagree. I love to be flexible, I want the right unit for any task I might run into. As I said in other threads, I hate monotony and love variety, and I get easily bored if games get repetitious.

For those reasons, I usually try to put together a a toolbox of units, with (ideally) multiple ways to interact with each other, multiple roles every unit can play, depending on setup and battlefield conditions. I don't like commitment, and committing to a single strategy or battle plan before I even know what army Im going to face goes against everything I believe in.

Mr.selfdestruct
30-11-2011, 20:21
I have always preferred to build lists that prioritize the use of regular members of a specific force i.e. Infantry Platoons or Tactical Marines. That being said, I don't believe there's anything wrong with using army lists that make use of the other parts of the force organization chart. It's built that way because it's a GAME. This is not tactical wargames training, this is not an attempt to show an accurate depiction of real life military organization. They make those games though, and they are alot of fun! 40k is simply not one of them though.
For anyone who remembers 2nd edition though, you had to build your armies according to percentages. 50% HAD to come from your core/troops selections, and no greater than 25% could be rare or command models. Only by using special detachments could you break that arrangement, which made perfect sense. I personally liked that system much more that the one in place today, but the game has changed.

Cry of the Wind
30-11-2011, 21:32
Pyriel really shares the same view as me. I like taking different units because I like them not because it's fluffy to do so. If you want to play a game with lots of different units play Warmachine, I don't think I have ever used a duplicate in that game besides Nightwretch arcnodes nor have faced more than 2 of the same Jack/Beast ever.

Pyriel
30-11-2011, 21:44
Pyriel really shares the same view as me. I like taking different units because I like them not because it's fluffy to do so. If you want to play a game with lots of different units play Warmachine, I don't think I have ever used a duplicate in that game besides Nightwretch arcnodes nor have faced more than 2 of the same Jack/Beast ever.

excellent , sir. while i disagree on the taste, i applaud. i mean, unlike others who just find excuse to blame ppl for playing in a different way, at least you know and admit why you do what you do. *bows in respect *

Nicho
30-11-2011, 21:57
I'm a nid player so i have tons of standard troops lol

UnkyHamHam
30-11-2011, 22:08
Basic troops is how I started in the tail end of 2nd Ed. and it's pretty much been my staple ever since. People in my gaming circle are always experimenting and trying out all these zany lists. I always stick to my Tacticals and Platoons. Even when I play my chaos marines, I use mostly troops, but that goes without saying.

All that said, I have a Vet/Grenadier list for Guard, and a Scout list for Marines. But I agree with anyone that says "play what you like." I just happen to prefer the 'fluffy' lists the most, and I have a full Battle Company with supporting detatchments and transports.

agurus1
30-11-2011, 22:15
seriously? DW is op now? lol. I'll tell you what it takes a hell of a lot more tactics to play with a 20 model army (let alone keep most of them alive) than to play other net-lists.

Myself, my guard army is one platoon, two vet squads, two LRBT, two vendettas, Lord Commissar and Straken. Always makes for a fun game!

Vaktathi
30-11-2011, 23:16
Did OP just say that Deathwing takes no skill to play? :wtf:

Post FAQ with ubiquitous 3++sv's and mix/match equipment, there are some situations where that's actually true.


As to the OP's questions, there was never a point where most armies were 75-80% Troops FoC units, if anything Troops units are more common than the previous two editions due to their greater importance, but 40-60% is more typical. Many armies wouldn't be playable with 75-80% of their points in Troops. Though, as others pointed out, technically the Deathwing player fits that % rather well :p

Freman Bloodglaive
30-11-2011, 23:19
Nope.

My bikes come in two flavours. 5 models with two meltaguns, or 9 models with two meltaguns and a multi-melta. Why? Because every squad needs the ability to deal with armour, heavy infantry and light infantry.

My dreadnoughts come in two flavours too, two twin-linked autocannon, or multi-melta/heavy flamer. The auto-cannon offer the long range firepower my bikes lack, the multi-melta/heavy flamers tie up enemy units (and look cool).

Real armies spam units because they need the tools to do their job. Spamming is fluffy, building armies around a grab bag of units is not.

druchii
01-12-2011, 09:26
The problem is that in a lot of the older books troops are some of the worst units in the army, or the troops do things like hold objectives and be annoying rather than doing anything.

Tau and demons are perfect examples of this. While Tau Firewarriors are incredibly overpriced, demons have access to some of the best objective camping models in the game (IE plague bearers). With demons, it also becomes "well bloodletters are good, but bloodcrushers are GREAT!" and that's the problem too, troops only begin to be really attractive in a demon army AFTER you've filled all your other FoC slots. I don't bump up past 10 plague bearers until I'm playing 2500pt games.

Oh, but we have 0 melta ranged weapons in the demon book, so I never run meltas, ever ;)

d

benogham
01-12-2011, 10:03
I think the OP question is irrelevant : we play our games with roughly 40 to 200 minis a side. that's not an army we're leading but a very small detachment of an army. These small detachment are living the close-ups of a larger war. If you want the feel of a real army, get to Epic scale. There you will have the green soldiers, the mass infantry, the tank squadrons and so forth.
At WH40k scale, we live scenarii were extraordinary soldiers are involved : Calgar is not involved in every smurf squirmish, but we play the squirmish where he's here. We have to accept that we play at a heroic scale. Therefore, there is loads of elite troops in those exceptionnal moments.
No one stops you writing scenario limiting hq and elite choices and forcing a large amount a troops.

Furthermore, variety is good. We play a strategy game. Which game is richer ? Check or Checkers ?

Isfimbur
01-12-2011, 13:00
I field 5 squads of boys that total up to 84 models in my usual list, and I play competitively. Is that basic enough for you? All armies does not play like that thou. Orks have very strong basic troops.

doubleT
01-12-2011, 13:19
66.33 % of my army is troops (81 models).
15 % is HQ, the rest is artillery and some grenadiers.

Like Pyriel, I was in the military and I'm interested in military history. Maybe that's why I chose the Death Korps for my army. Every soldier, from Private to General, has the same basic gear, with specialist units getting some equipment on top of the basic gear or officers getting their chest plates.

But I have no problems with other peoples fielding armies where every squad has a different color ... ;)

Okuto
01-12-2011, 13:51
You really ought to think about your topic title......what is the def of a "basic list"....

You do a poor job of masking the fact you really just wanna know if people don't take optimized lists......


All termis are hardly that big of a deal and it's a rather characterful army at times

marv335
01-12-2011, 14:02
More often than not I field Goff Orks.
Lots of Boys on foot with some Nobs in a truuk.
In a 1500pt army I regularly field 100+ models, 90 of them troops.

Bunnahabhain
01-12-2011, 15:34
I often run an army of 1HQ, 3 Troops, with no transports or vehicles at all. That basic enough?

The fact the three troops are all Guard platoons, so that is quite a few units, depending on points level, is neither here nor there.

Grand Master Raziel
01-12-2011, 16:19
Hi I just watched a 1000 point battle report of Deathwing vs Necrons. The Necron player had 2 units of warriors, some wraiths, a couple of character models, and some immortals (Give or take). The Deathwing player had 4 "squads" of 5 terminators with heavy flame throwers and other mixed equipment and Belial. Admittedly the necron player made several basic mistakes such as deep striking a warrior unit in front of a terminator unit but I don't see the tactics involved in using an all terminator "army". Roll to make 2+ saves (he lost 1 terminator for the whole game) move forward shoot everything in sight, charge and rip apart everything in close combat with terminators or named character.
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

Belial isn't that awesome a named character. His main virtues are that he's inexpensive and that he brings Terminators as Troops to the table. Other than that, he's just another Terminator with 1 more attack and 3 wounds.

Sounds to me like the Necron player played poorly, and also didn't have much of an army list. If he had more than 1 character at 1000pts, he's spending too much on them.

As far as 75-80% basic troops goes, even a Space Marine Battle Company wouldn't have that percentage of Troops. 6 Tac Squads+2 Devastator Squads+2 Assault Squads=66% Troops. If you're playing Space Marines, the most fluffy list you can bring to the table for a reasonable number of points is 3 Tac Squads+1 Assault Squad+1 Devastator Squad+HQ+support vehicles, and points-wise that probably comes up to 50% Troops or less. I defy you to get more fluffy than half a battle company.

I've actually been thinking about a list built around half a battle company to the next NOVA event I attend, just to see how it fares against the tricked-out tournament armies.

Konovalev
01-12-2011, 21:04
Why do people think that infantry is the main fighting force of an army? This isn't true in 40k and it hasn't been true in real life since the invention of cavalry. Infantry are for occupying, and pressuring the enemy with their presence (usually by occupying strategic places).

Think of the enemy as a big rock. Your fast attack, heavy support, and elite elements break the rock apart. Then the troops come in and sweep the pieces off the field.

Pyriel
01-12-2011, 21:30
um... what Konovalev said is "mostly" accurate. for more accuracy:

across history army-wise(not navy/air force), we have the following units:


1. simple, poorly trained/armed Infantry."mere swordsmen with light armour and maybe some shields". typicaly crap-since the ancient times, "mere infantry" have some of the most impressive defeats.
very useful as militia to guard cities though(in the old times, there wasnt such a thing as "police"). currently, in modern warfare, this kind of thing does NOT exist.nobody uses it for actual combat since ww1-it sucked. even when the russians tried to use it some in ww2, it was again the situation in the tank fights that made the difference.

2. "cavalry". cavalry refer not only to horsemen but also modern tank formations (indeed, some countries call their armoured companies "cavalry companies" even). cavalry typicaly hits VERY hard, and hence steals the show, but cant be relied on to hold an enemy territory alone, esp if urban.

3. "light infantry". light infantry refer to lightly armoured but well-trained troops, usualy trained for guerilla warfare. from ancient peltasts to modern-day Recon units. light infantry are too hard to train, and you cant realy have many of them in an army for that matter, because *its not worth it*. they are, in a way, "overcosted", but a very few units of them are NEEDED due to their special skills.IRL, they operate like Troops in competitive 40k; "get some very few to claim objectives, and the real killing will be done by others"

4. Heavy Infantry. Spartan/Theban/Macedonian Hoplites. Swiss Halberdiers. most modern infantry, but mostly the Marines or some special forces. the term "heavy infantry" spreads horror amongst enemy commanders; it means " a force on foot, with numbers close to that of an infantry force, and armed/armoured to the teeth like some super-cavalry force". traditionaly, such units kick ****, and ppl *incorrectly* think they are much better trained than they are, ue to their effectiveness on the field. Heavy infantry units have "slightly above average" training, just enough to make them tough, but easy for LOTS of ppl to succeed, and compensate for that with tremendous armament.

a real-life heavy infantry squad will have 2-3 fireteams, who would in total have 2-3 grenade launchers(+1 from sergeant), 2-3 squad automatic weapons(machineguns), and a dedicated tankhunter. and... 4-6 riflemen(!!!yup... more fancy weapons than rifles). they will have one, maybe even TWO transport vehicles, often with more weaponry than just some 0.50 cal. each. "what if imperial guard veterans could combat squad and had EVEN more special/heavy weapons than their current overpowered allotment, and had better armour, and costed nearly the same"? thats what heavy infantry is.

terrorised much?...

these are the combat elements (cause there is also engineering corps, etc.) of an army. traditionaly, "heavy infantry" and cavalry kick **** due to being very well-armed, and "light/special infantry" can be relied upon, though they are too few to steal the show. "simple" infantry might be maintained in very few numbers, usualy reserves or used as sentries/militia to guard the borders from immigrants and the like-they are not considered exactly "battle-ready".

what you will see in war is heavy infantry, light(more acurately "special") infantry, and "cavalry"(tanks), supported by air force/navy. not hordes of riflemen.
(last thing: i didnt realy mention artillery cause IRL its far from the fight).

my point is, as is Konovalev's, that ppl that imagine an army filled with "various troops and some characters" and think that is fluffy "cause thats how an army is" are VERY wrong. an army has powerful-wargear elements of identical type, having nearly identical units using them in perfect conjunction. in short,40k words, "spam" of the same identical choices and filled with vehicles/heavy weapons/special weapons in each FOC slot.THAT is an army.

Rogerio
01-12-2011, 22:51
I play with a non jerkish army, loads of troops in my CSM list - although our troops are godlike in comparison to other armies with Zerks and Plagues.

at 2k i usually run

Lord with twin claws (which most people say is a stupid choice)

2 zerk units, 1 plague unit all in rhinos.

2 x CSM units Plasma, ML.

and some other cool stuff.

It works really well as i have so many marines on the board and alot of firepower mixed with great combat abilities if you factor in the predator and oblits i have.

People in my area play with good mixed lists and its really enjoyable to play!

Gertjan
01-12-2011, 22:57
My army is IG and a pretty basic list aswell, no veteran spam or anything.

Hq: 1 command squad

Elites: ratlings

Troops: Big platoon and 2 veteran squads with one plasma and a melta gun (2 special weapons in total for two squads, one weapon a squad)

Fast Attack: rough riders

Heavy support: Basic lr battle tanks

Scaryscarymushroom
02-12-2011, 02:21
And what's more, basic infantry is pretty boring to play with...


I disagree, actually.

And for everyone here on the thread, I'd like to draw the distinction between an army made up of primarily troops, and a "basic" army.

Any army of space marines consisting primarily of Tac Squads+missile launcher+flamer is basic. An army of terminators is not.
An all encompassing tau army that doesn't hesitate to field fire warriors (with/without transports) or kroot would be basic. An army with 6 6-man squads in devilfish is not.
A sisters of battle army featuring bolters, flamers, and meltaguns, without 10 immolators or 30 seraphim or special characters or meltaguns out the wazoo would be basic.
A necron army which includes warriors and immortals can be basic. An army that includes as many ghost arks as warrior squads is not. An army that includes a large number of tesla carbines is not.
A tyranid army with termagants and warriors would be basic. An army with several tervigons is not.

massey
02-12-2011, 04:54
I disagree, actually.

And for everyone here on the thread, I'd like to draw the distinction between an army made up of primarily troops, and a "basic" army.

Any army of space marines consisting primarily of Tac Squads+missile launcher+flamer is basic. An army of terminators is not.
An all encompassing tau army that doesn't hesitate to field fire warriors (with/without transports) or kroot would be basic. An army with 6 6-man squads in devilfish is not.
A sisters of battle army featuring bolters, flamers, and meltaguns, without 10 immolators or 30 seraphim or special characters or meltaguns out the wazoo would be basic.
A necron army which includes warriors and immortals can be basic. An army that includes as many ghost arks as warrior squads is not. An army that includes a large number of tesla carbines is not.
A tyranid army with termagants and warriors would be basic. An army with several tervigons is not.

What a nice, completely arbitrary standard.

On topic, I've found you have the most fun when players are on the same page. If Bob wants to try out the 9 new random units that he just bought and painted, and Joe wants to practice his tournament army, perhaps they should find different opponents.

There's nothing wrong with taking a WD style "picking out my army in the dark" list. But most people don't use that method. Most people never used that method. So don't be too disappointed when you go to the game shop and nobody picks their army that way.

Pyriel
02-12-2011, 07:59
What a nice, completely arbitrary standard.

On topic, I've found you have the most fun when players are on the same page. If Bob wants to try out the 9 new random units that he just bought and painted, and Joe wants to practice his tournament army, perhaps they should find different opponents.

There's nothing wrong with taking a WD style "picking out my army in the dark" list. But most people don't use that method. Most people never used that method. So don't be too disappointed when you go to the game shop and nobody picks their army that way.


this is very true. what i basicaly do is, if someone wants to play a random army, i will use my templars as codex marines and use a "half battle company" army of tacticals/devastators/assault .(i cant do this with black templars cause templars dont have battle companies in the fluff or a way to form battle companies in the game; many small differences and some larger ones)

if i used my templars with "15-20 heavy weapons & 8-10 vehicles & sword brethren terminators etc" against a random fluffy opponent, i *would* be a jerk.

i also have to thank scaryscarymushroom for FINALY using a distinction. yes, a Tau army that fields 6x6 firewarriors on devilfishes isnt basic (this army sucks, btw). An army with some firewarriors and kroot is?... because an average *competitive* tau army will field exactly 6x firewarriors, 17 x kroot, and 13 x kroot(and 6 x pathfinders, lending their transport devilfish to the firewarriors. this has to do with firewarriors sucking). if this is a more "basic" army, guess what-its also a more competitive one, leaving more room for battlesuit spam.

many competitive armies are tons more "basic" than supposedly fluffy ones. a space marine force with only tactical squads and a captain is not fluffy- in the fluff, battle companes have 6 tacs-2 devs-2 assault-2 dreads-1 command, meaning 7 NON-tactical units to 6 tactical units; thats right, not even fluffy marines should spend 50% of their points in troops.

within that context, MANY players play "basic" armylists, including the NOVA and adepticon winner , who used 5x troops units (!!!!). they just take their choices and gear them up properly. just like a normal army would do.

Ozorik
02-12-2011, 08:40
I always take a solid core of 'troops' (or equivalent depending on the game system), usually well over 50% of the points and a much higher percentage of the model count. I have fielded armies with approximately 95% of the points spent on 'troops' on occasion, and they usually work well on the table.

It is also fluffy, very much so, as 'troops' (who are not necessarily leg infantry or even infantry at all) are the most common type of unit that an army has and should be very well represented. Themed lists may be fluffy with minimal troops but that's about the only exception.

As to if this is boring well thats in the eye of the beholder but I find that playing with or against toy heavy lists leads to disappointing games.

RandomThoughts
02-12-2011, 10:27
And what's more, basic infantry is pretty boring to play with...

I disagree, actually.

Fair enough, and I think I failed to make my point.

First of all, fluffwise I find highly competent elite units far more compelling than the common schmucks in the trenches. Just a personal preference, though.

Now, regarding gameplay, what I meant to say is this: The one aspect of tabletop games that interests me most is trying to outmaneuver my opponent. To that end, I like to bring fast units, units that can maneuver safely without being shot at, powerful blocker units that can lock down portions of the board for my opponent, powerful shooting units that can deny other parts of the board with their fire lanes, and lots of similar stuff.

In my experience, at least, basic infantry does a pretty bad job in all of these roles. The most likely role I can see for basic infantry to play in this would be roadblock, perhaps with some fire support. It's what I'd try to do with Imps, with Orks, perhaps even with Marines, but with Eldar, that's not really much of an option...

Still, I'd much rather field a variety of different units working side by side filling different battlefield roles, than spamming identical multi-purpose units. Just my personal preference, though, I guess.

PS: I think the quote in my signature captures this mentality quite nicely.

xxRavenxx
02-12-2011, 10:54
What I don't get, is why a "non basic" army is seen as a bad thing. Most of my armies are something a little unusual.

Take my eldar wraith-army. Its not hugely powerful, being a mix of guardians, wraithguard, warlocks, and a couple of wraithlords. It is however highly themed, with its contents selected because I like them, as opposed to them being for any sort of powergaming.

orkmiester
02-12-2011, 11:20
What I don't get, is why a "non basic" army is seen as a bad thing. Most of my armies are something a little unusual.

Take my eldar wraith-army. Its not hugely powerful, being a mix of guardians, wraithguard, warlocks, and a couple of wraithlords. It is however highly themed, with its contents selected because I like them, as opposed to them being for any sort of powergaming.


thats the point... everyone has a different way of building their list regardless of where you are *minefiled warning* a 'fluffy' or 'power' gamer:rolleyes:

basic army lists do work but these days who dosen't like to play around with some of the shiny toys that are avaliable?

now not wishing to offend- most people i find tend to try to have a mixture of things, as going 'basic' is just inherent madness and as some have said results in 'auto-lose' situations.

just my humble opinion:angel:

Brother Loki
02-12-2011, 11:25
@Pyriel - It's interesting that you feel that a 'realistic' 40k force must resemble an early 21st century one. What makes you think that genetically engineered space knights in the 41st millennium, each of whom is fully capable of punching through light armoured vehicles (s4), and shrugging off hits from anything less powerful than an anti-tank rocket (AP3), would operate in the same way as modern soldiers? Your firepower example is interesting too. Each space marine carries a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, similar to the modern Mk19 (http://youtu.be/58RYC0cF4UU), as their basic weapon, with a smaller semi-auto version as a sidearm - are they really under-equipped?

A fully tricked out IG veteran squad with 3 special weapons, a HW team, and all the doctrines (carapace armour, demolitions equipment, and possibly even snare mines (claymores)) supported by a chimera IFV mounting 2 heavy weapons is pretty close to your early 20th century heavy infantry squad in equipment and capability. The more traditional infantry platoon bears a lot more resemblance to early 20th century formations, which were primarily comprised of riflemen, because the one resource the Imperium is never going to run out of is men who can carry a rifle, so for them, attritional warfare of the type seen in WW1 is still acceptable. Indeed, in many cases the rifle is seen as worth more than the life of the man carrying it, since he is a lot easier to replace.

Trying to model a 'modern' army in 40k is never going to be entirely successful for 2 reasons. It's not a realistic setting, it's a heroic one - in a universe where interstallar travel and orbital bombardments are commonplace, every decisive engagement comes down to a few people having a sword fight. Secondly, because the commanders in the 41st millennium simply don't think the way we do - either because they're aliens, or religious fanatics who value ritual over reason, or any number of other reasons.

If you want to simulate a 'realistic' army, then 40k isn't the game to try and do it in. Accept 40k for the space fantasy it is, and for your realism kick try something like Force on Force from Ambush Alley Games which is designed for modern (i.e. post WW2) combat and scales for everything from a Bravo-Two-Zero type 8-man SAS patrol to a Red Storm Rising style 'cold war gone hot' full scale combined arms battle. there are no army lists - you use the actual TOE for the force you're simulating, and everytihng is scenario based. It even handles ultramodern style asymmetrical highly trained special forces vs vast hordes of insuurgents elegantly. You can get the FoF quickstart rules for free here (http://ambushalleygames.com/resources/downloads/31-extras/54-force-on-force-quick-start-rules).

Pyriel
02-12-2011, 11:34
NO. in game turns, a space marine carries a "mere rifle". until we play with movie marine rules, i consider a space marine armed with a "mere rifle"(and mere pistol, or whatever).

in fluff, environment says "most foes are renegade imperial guard", you should understand that. against Eldar/Tyranids/Dark Eldar/Tau/Chaos, are you sure the average space marine isnt underequipped?

in tournaments, which imho is equivalent to "we're going to a campaign where we expect X characteristic foes", the average foe is a space marine or other MEQ. hence, space marine=the average soldier. a force would equip as it must, and not with "average rifles" (cause thats what boltguns are if you only expect to face space marines)

Brother Loki
02-12-2011, 12:30
Surely they'd equip with what they have available? Marines are as well equipped as the Imperium can make them with the resources available. If that's not adequate against a technologically superior alien race such as the Eldar, it doesn't mean that the Imperium can magic up some extra stuff just to compete - they make do with what they have, which is the best they can produce. It's no different from if modern day Earth were to be invaded by an advanced alien race. Combine that with a dark age mentality where innovation is heresy, and the technology of earlier times can no longer be produced (much like Greek Fire in our world).

Regardless, the game rules do not perfectly simulate the setting, for the sake of making a compelling game. In universe, one million Astartes are a more formidable fighting force than the countless trillions of the Imperial Guard. There's roughly one marine for each planet in the Imperium, and it's enough. But that doesn't necessarily make a game fun for all players.

I personally agree that a typical 40k tabletop army bears little or no resemblance to a comparably sized real world force, but then it's not really meant to - each of the different races has good in-universe reasons for its unique organisation and structure, which simply don't make sense in the mindset of modern day warfare.

Orks are a genetically engineered race predisposed to violence, who group together in clusters of like minded individuals and follow the largest and most agressive among them, constantly competing for dominance. The Eldar are an ancient, almost extinct race for whom war is something between an act of desperation, a work of art and an act of ritual worship. They fight the way they do because of tradition, not practicality, and the fact that their farseers and the Webway give them the ability to win strategic objectives with the absolute minimum of specialised resources. The dark eldar fight like they do because they simply enjoy it. In many ways the Tau are the closest to a modern day force - highly mobile, similarly equipped with an emphasis on force preservation and readily available support assets such as airstrikes.

Pyriel
02-12-2011, 12:49
but what do the marines have available?...
COUNTLESS stuff. whatever a whole imperial guard world of tens of regiments have, one marine chapter can have, and more. this means they can totaly equip everyone with plasmaguns, they have that many plasmaguns and more. its just their *dogma* on boltgun/plasmagun ratios and the like that makes the difference.

if space marines need 30-40 powerfists per strikeforce(company assets + attachments), they will sure as hell get the 30-40 powerfists. if black templars need 20 lascannons per 40-man fighting company, they'll get them, either via vehicles, or other ways. if Raven Guard, whose world is said to be "a mini forgworld", need three landraiders, they'll get them-even if its not what they usualy use.

i regard "edition change" or "meta change" as "shifts to war tactics due to across-the-board tech changes", for example in 4th, ppl didnt use vehicles because the anti-tank weapons of the time were better developed, in 5th the armour of vehicles was more improved and ppl spammed vehicles, etc. the fluff of the game is such that most competitive armies an totaly be explained in a fluffy manner.

Ozorik
02-12-2011, 12:57
You have a very strange way of looking at the game.

Pyriel
02-12-2011, 13:10
has to do with me being a military history buff :P example:

in the 60s, air combat was all about speed and maneuvrability for dogfights. laer on, at late 70's but especialy late 80's, BVR technology(beyond-visual-range) GREATLY advanced, and now actual air combat happen at distances of 15 miles or more-you never see the enemy, you just use your *radar* to target him, launch missiles, and the missiles follow the aircraft for 25 miles (using the AIM-120 amraam as template, which is widely used), surpassing most of his countermeasures , flares etc via advanced digital targeting systems.no maneuvers to "lock him in crosshairs" like in top gun, no nothing. "war of the boring button-pressing". since then, ppl aint realy all that interested in a fighter aircraft's speed, only on its radars and missiles. this is why the Blackbird, that was operational since the 70's iirc is STILL the fastest operational military airplane, -nobody BOTHERED becoming faster, it wasnt important anymore.

lately "stealth" has become the name of the game, with additional changes on wargears. make it hard for enemy BVR technology, or, in game mechanic terms "man, with all these new codex options, BVR got nerfed"

see? metagaming to WAAC and beat the environment is not something gamers do-its something *armies* do.

Ozorik
02-12-2011, 13:58
Except of course the 40k tech is nearly completely static :)

Pyriel
02-12-2011, 14:18
no its not;
-Tau evolve their technology.totaly.
-Eldar tecnology, we dont know, but we have no reasons to believe it is static.
-The tyranids evolve more than everybody.
-the necrons dont evolve, but "older and shinier" stuff awaken as time passes by, justifying any changes in their weaponry.
-Imperial technology is TOTALY static. except... overtime, old technology that was considered lost is frequently employed. consider the "invention" of the Land Raider Crusader by the Black Templars, the modifications of Jurisian to a long-forgoten superwhatevercannon in Helsreach, and other supposedly lost but rediscovered(=effectively new) technology.

again, the fluff is deliberately made in such a way that most such stuff can be justified.

Vaktathi
02-12-2011, 14:35
-Eldar tecnology, we dont know, but we have no reasons to believe it is static.Hrm, dunno about that, they've never been described as having significantly different armaments or vehicles at any point in time, and in fact are referenced with pretty much the exact same equipment as they have now in the book Fulgrim. Their warrior-shrines are very static/traditionalist in nature and aren't exactly apt to change equipment and whatnot.

Woodsman
02-12-2011, 15:25
I take what I like - generally highly themed and anyone who doesn't like it can ~@^ing get over themselves.


Why are people on warseer so concerned with what other people are doing?

Bergen Beerbelly
02-12-2011, 18:41
Well, I can tell you my reasons why I don't play the way the OP was asking about. I play this game for all of the crazy stuff the units and commanders can do. I don't like the idea of playing a game where everyone is armed with the same weapon or close to the same weapon.

It's boring to me to see my Farseer gunned down by a tactical squad of space marines with bolt guns. It isn't very heroic. I would rather someone shoot him with a lascannon or close combat him to death after he got charged by a unit of thunderwolf cavarly or the army commander.

If everyone used basic troops with only their standard weapon load out this game would get boring for me very quickly. Even though the fluff on the Bolt Gun is basically saying its a rapid firing grenade launcher, since it's the standard gun of the space marine I don't consider it anything special.

For my games I want the heroic combats between the commanders or the last stand against the assult armed squad. The hopeless situation that turns around into a win. The sweeping victory of many different type of units working together to win the battle. Not the basic units standing across from each other shooting it out with rifles.

RandomThoughts
02-12-2011, 18:45
Why are people on warseer so concerned with what other people are doing?

I think it's usually one of two things:
1. Some people like to play with "White Dwarf" lists, and are horrified to see everyone else doesn't, or perhaps they had some bad experiences in real life with people they fought, and are later venting on the internet.
2. Some people take the gaming / competitive side of the game very serious, and get easily excited about it.

Oh, I thought about a third one:
3. Someone stumbles into a thread like this, finds it annoying how much other people talk about the way the build armies / think armies should be built, and post their views in response.

Really, do you think anyone here in this thread really cares how you build your army, as long as you're not part of their actual gaming group? :confused:

althathir
02-12-2011, 20:12
Hi I just watched a 1000 point battle report of Deathwing vs Necrons. The Necron player had 2 units of warriors, some wraiths, a couple of character models, and some immortals (Give or take). The Deathwing player had 4 "squads" of 5 terminators with heavy flame throwers and other mixed equipment and Belial. Admittedly the necron player made several basic mistakes such as deep striking a warrior unit in front of a terminator unit but I don't see the tactics involved in using an all terminator "army". Roll to make 2+ saves (he lost 1 terminator for the whole game) move forward shoot everything in sight, charge and rip apart everything in close combat with terminators or named character.
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

1) That cron list just looks thrown together, it just doesn't seem like a balanced list at all. How does it take out a tank (I know gauss can glance but thats still a risky strategy)? How expensive are those 2 characters and can they both take full advantage of their abilities? I think a lot of armies would table this one because it seems like its designed to only fight non-elite infantry with only one unit (wraiths) that can be a trouble shooter.

2) normally the advantage you have againist deathwing style lists is how slow they are after they appear. The correct response isn't to deep strike a unit right in front of them. I know you pointed this out but in a 1000 point game with 5 or 6 units you can't throw one away. Its gonna lead to the game snowballing on someone. When you factor in how one-dimensional the necron list is I can't see this game requiring much thought from the DA player.

3) Yeah those players are out there, you just have to tell people what kinda of game your looking for (super fluffy), and accept some players won't be interested or can't tone down their forces much so you have to think outside the box to make the game fun (handicaps, meat-grinder style missions, etc). Because peoples idea of what makes a basic army are different. I think a basic force should be designed to be able to take out vehicles, and should have an answer for elite squads (whether thats fighting fire with fire, attrition, or running is up to the player and they're all viable). Throwing a bunch of infantry together without figuring out how to achieve those goals shouldn't make a force that wins IMO. That doesn't mean I won't try and make the game fun if I play againist someone who wants to play a game with just base troops, but I need to know so I that can change things up.

I can't stress enough that people need to be proactive in looking for the type of game they want. I think players not comunicating leads to alot of the problems in 40k, so just talk with your opponent first.


No, because the way GW designs their games, that's the surefire way to a guaranteed loss. I play Eldar, I'm already at an advantage just for the race I chose, I don't need to handicap myself further. And what's more, basic infantry is pretty boring to play with...



So, does that mean I'm a ******, too, because I don't play a (completely unfluffy, by the way) horde of Guardians?



I get your point, even though I kind of disagree. I love to be flexible, I want the right unit for any task I might run into. As I said in other threads, I hate monotony and love variety, and I get easily bored if games get repetitious.

For those reasons, I usually try to put together a a toolbox of units, with (ideally) multiple ways to interact with each other, multiple roles every unit can play, depending on setup and battlefield conditions. I don't like commitment, and committing to a single strategy or battle plan before I even know what army Im going to face goes against everything I believe in.

RandomThoughts brings up another point. Eldar have codex that was designed not only to have a bunch of specialist units, but also when non-troop units were still scoring, dire avengers don't have answers for everything on purpose, and 80% troop army with the eldar codex would get smashed (unless you counted wave serpents towards that limit) cause they were never really designed to do that.

And its perfectly fine for him to want to use those elite options, it goes back to the point about different people wanting different things from their ideal of a basic army.


Hrm, dunno about that, they've never been described as having significantly different armaments or vehicles at any point in time, and in fact are referenced with pretty much the exact same equipment as they have now in the book Fulgrim. Their warrior-shrines are very static/traditionalist in nature and aren't exactly apt to change equipment and whatnot.

The thing with Eldar technology is that while the craftworlds seem to be locked in to certain things, the Dark Eldar seem to be looking for new stuff so I think your both right its just your looking at different fractions.

madival
03-12-2011, 03:55
Hi I just watched a 1000 point battle report of Deathwing vs Necrons. The Necron player had 2 units of warriors, some wraiths, a couple of character models, and some immortals (Give or take). The Deathwing player had 4 "squads" of 5 terminators with heavy flame throwers and other mixed equipment and Belial. Admittedly the necron player made several basic mistakes such as deep striking a warrior unit in front of a terminator unit but I don't see the tactics involved in using an all terminator "army". Roll to make 2+ saves (he lost 1 terminator for the whole game) move forward shoot everything in sight, charge and rip apart everything in close combat with terminators or named character.
Does anyone play with army comprising 75 to 80% basic troops with no repetition of melta guns or heavy weapons or what ever happens to be the trick of the week to win with out having to think.

I know the battle report you are talking about. The necron player literally did everything wrong he could. EVERYTHING. even the old codex was wrong with what he did. the deathwing list is actually rather fluffy and normal. He also stomped him so bad because it was HIS necrons that he sold out of dislike for the new codex. they had traveled a good distance and got back to him. pretty much, as bad as this sounds, dont hate the player, hate the game.