PDA

View Full Version : kill beardhammer lists - rise of the well balanced list



AdaptUK0
17-07-2012, 13:27
Hi Guys, AdaptUK0 here!

Just a quick question. I'm getting pretty fed up of seeing people post/use army lists that look like they've been created by a primary school IT class. An example:

grey knight squad
psycannon
razorback
psycannon

Dreadnought
2 autocannons, psybolt ammo

Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
LIST FINISHED

Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!

What do you guys think? Not only is this incredibly boring to play against, it takes all the fun out of planning an effective army list composed of multiple unit types!

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 13:35
...why?

it is not competitive.
it is not realistic for a proper army.

it is only good for the modelling of the hobby(for which i dont care; i'd almost prefer it if the models were pre-made)

think about it from a TRUE fluff perspective(competitiveness-aside): if YOU were a 40k commander, would you rather have an army that has a ton of different units with no TRUE cohesion(cohesion=substance=TONS more important than style/beauty), or an army where everyone looks the same(what all my real-life commanders wanted; eyes front, no initiative, never move unless told to, never speak unless spoken to, etc), like disciplined no-free-will automatons, ready to execute your orders even if it means dying to the last man,each unit armed with mostly same weapons so that they are also expendable?...
most military commanders choose the second option; its not only more competitive in 40k, but its more competitive in LIFE too.

search for the list of your country's armed forces; you will see a bunch of "mechanised divisions", "armoured divisions" and "infantry divisions",or even "paratrooper divisions", never a "division with some tanks/some transports/some guys on foot/some helicopters/some special forces+whatever else on same unit".

aenimosity
17-07-2012, 13:41
I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout.Propose away :rolleyes:


In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!
I think GW are smart by allowing us to have the option of fluffy fun lists like ork hordes or saim hann eldar.


What do you guys think? Not only is this incredibly boring to play against, it takes all the fun out of planning an effective army list composed of multiple unit types!
What's fun for you isn't the same as for other people. Tournament players get their fun out of beating opponents with optimised lists. If you've got an issue with the lists you face, then propose your changes to the people you regularly game with. Your proposal of a universal ban on more than 2 units with the same loadout is just plain silly.

EDIT: Not saying that I disagree with your preference for armies with many different unit types. I run my eldar as Biel Tan with every aspect squad and my tyranids (back in the day) with diverse loadouts and even lictors. I usually get my ass handed to me though :D

Freakiq
17-07-2012, 13:50
I find players that always field boring spam tend to get shunned anyway.

═nstead of enforcing your idea of fun just don't play them.

Kynth
17-07-2012, 13:56
...I'm getting pretty fed up...Don't you think...we should universally ban...GW aren't that smart...this incredibly boring to play against...it takes all the fun out
Objection! Original Poster is leading the Witness, Your Honour.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 14:06
You will never kill optimization. You will never kill spam. Find a group that doesn't play like this is really the only thing that you can do if you don't like it.

Leeman Russ
17-07-2012, 14:15
To be fair to the OP, the group he plays *doesn't* play like this - I should know because I'm one of them!

What I think he's aiming for (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that netlisting kind of dilutes the hobby somewhat, and in places it can creep into less competitive environments whether you want them to or not - our FLGS isn't too bad as most of the crowd there aren't competitive players, but every now and then a netlist shows up and slaps the unfortunate guy (figuratively speaking) who offered to play him.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 14:30
To be fair to the OP, the group he plays *doesn't* play like this - I should know because I'm one of them!

What I think he's aiming for (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that netlisting kind of dilutes the hobby somewhat, and in places it can creep into less competitive environments whether you want them to or not - our FLGS isn't too bad as most of the crowd there aren't competitive players, but every now and then a netlist shows up and slaps the unfortunate guy (figuratively speaking) who offered to play him.


...well, that is WRONG, and even coming from a competitive player like myself. it is WRONG to optimise your list when playing in a non-competitive game.tournaments are a competitive scene, but a competitive player bringing an optimised list to beat a random FLGS fluffy non-competitive player is the SAME as a professional MMA fighter using full-force on a..seminar, or when guest-training in a random gym, and beating ppl up/injuring them. it is a moraly wrong thing to do.jerk.

Carlosophy
17-07-2012, 14:32
...why?

it is not competitive.
it is not realistic for a proper army.

it is only good for the modelling of the hobby(for which i dont care; i'd almost prefer it if the models were pre-made)

think about it from a TRUE fluff perspective(competitiveness-aside). What if YOU were the 40k Commander?

I *am* the 40k commander. That HQ choice down there is me, leading my men to victory.

Fair play if you prefer to play competitively but to say that a balanced force is in some way not a 'proper' army is fairly insulting to the majority of GW's customers who buy into the hobby based on the cool models and the evocative background.

On your terms a 'realistic' 40k army is a task force sent to accomplish a certain mission. Consider the average 40k force: a SM Battle Company. You have 6 Tactical Squads who act as all-rounders supported by 4-5 dedicated assault/support units. Heck, the Force Organisation Chart is built in this very manner. If a player finds themselves with a more specialised army it is more often than not to represent a particular strand of military: Kult of Speed, Blood Angels 7th Company, Artillery Company etc and battles where a task force might Ambush an Artillery convoy or a Deathwing force must capture a member of the fallen are fairly commonplace in the background and literature.

Spamming certain units will undoubtedly give you a competitive edge (which I appreciate players need) but in no way does it represent a 'proper' 40k army.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 14:34
...yes, 6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, 2 devastator squads.

NO PREDATORS.
NO VINDICATORS.
NO TERMINATORS.
only "3+ armor spam".
exactly what i said. the holy competitive gamer virtue of "saturation". see? the battle company is a spam list.

this is how a REAL army operates:

"everything is infantry on foot" OR
"everythinbg is spec ops" OR
"everything is infantry on transports" OR
"everything is a tank".
exception: most tank divisions have additional infantry elements on transports, but always on transports. why? to cause saturation(in this case, of vehicles) i.e. the exact same reason optimized lists "spam".

you will never find a unit of "two tanks plus 40 infantry guys plus 20 infantry on transports plus 10 spec ops guys plus 10 spec ops on one helicopter". theres NO WAY such a unit can have cohesion. only via attachment for specific tasks. real armies always use units to "spam the same choices".

and this includes IG tank companies, IG infantry regiments, SM battle companies, etc.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 14:35
EDIT: doublepost, sorry.

AdaptUK0
17-07-2012, 14:44
@Pyriel - Sounds like you're more interested in just playing a game to win rather than the hobby as a whole package. If you don't want to paint/model miniatures you can play the PC game, or maybe heroclix - I hear they supply models pre-painted.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 14:48
AdaptUK0;
thanks, honestly. but i cant find any heroclix tournaments in my country( i play at tons of tournaments in both mental and physical sports; i wouldnt take up a hobby without that goal in mind) and i typicaly dont play videogames.

Cheexsta
17-07-2012, 14:57
Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!

What do you guys think? Not only is this incredibly boring to play against, it takes all the fun out of planning an effective army list composed of multiple unit types!
My main army is World Eaters, so it would be expected that my most commonly-available Troops unit would be Berzerkers. Guess how many "expansive" options they currently have? I can take plasma pistols or not, and my Skull Champion has the option of exactly TWO weapons (plus meltabombs). This isn't exactly conducive to your army building philosophy. Even worse are my Daemons, whose Troops units typically have up to three whole options to choose from. Also sucks to be Tyranids, whose best anti-tank lies in 2-3 units - meaning that they are forced to bring multiples of these, or else they risk not being able to deal with armour.

I get that you want people to start taking more diverse lists, but it's a bit much to expect someone to take something just because it looks cool. You know what sucks? Buying some pretty models, spending hours assembling and painting them...only to bring them to the table and have them fail miserably because their rules are rubbish. Say goodbye to my Possessed and Dreadnoughts, which I have taken "just for the models", only to get them blown off the table on turn one. That's not fun.

And I don't think the solution is the proliferation of "0-1" units (or similar restrictions). I think the solution is for GW to make every unit useful somehow: the reason Tyranid players don't take Pyrovores isn't because their Hive Guard or Zoanthropes aren't 0-1, it's because Pyrovores have no place in the army!

IMHO, let players build armies how they like.

d6juggernaut
17-07-2012, 15:30
Hey look it's this thread again, and this one wants to BAN stuff too.

It's not fun to use a list with a whole bunch of units thrown together solely for the sake of variety because it's guaranteed to underperform, it's not fun to steamroll bad lists with with tournament lists either(unless you're in some dire need to exert your dominance in a board game). Optimized lists are not boring by default, they are boring when the player is not being challenged, it's in human nature to compete, and the human brain registers fun when they overcome challenges.

When 2 experienced players bring 2 equally matched armies, they are having the time of their lives. Arbitrarily banning stuff for the sake of variety is forcing people to play gimped armies purely for aesthetic reasons and personal preferences, and there are plenty of ways to work around that through painting and conversions. What, your model looks cool but it sucks? Blame GW for their crappy balancing, don't get in the way of other people having fun.

Lord Damocles
17-07-2012, 15:34
I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout.
As a Necron player, I respectfully disagree :eyebrows:

Captain Collius
17-07-2012, 15:37
I bring a Fluffy deathwing that means i'm limited to terminators dreadnoughts and landraiders. should i be in trouble for spamming as well?

C'mon get up dust yourself off and get on with it.

Vaktathi
17-07-2012, 17:12
Hi Guys, AdaptUK0 here!

Just a quick question. I'm getting pretty fed up of seeing people post/use army lists that look like they've been created by a primary school IT class. An example:

grey knight squad
psycannon
razorback
psycannon

Dreadnought
2 autocannons, psybolt ammo

Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
LIST FINISHED

Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. many reasons. Often some people just don't like all the models or mechanics of certan units so they don't use them and stick to others. In some cases, units are fundamentally just not functional (e.g. Chaos Spawn and Chaos Dreads).


I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart! Many theme armies would be annihilated by this, you'd cut out as many "fluffy" armies as you would "WAAC" armies. Additionally, not all units have meaningful upgrade options and thus would be forced to take upgrades just to be different if you wanted more than a couple of them (e.g. Vindicators, Hydras, Psyker Battle Squads, Defilers, etc)

There is nothing that this will fix in terms of "balance", it'll just move to a different meta, that sort of things needs to be fixed with a solid core ruleset and playtested codex books, something GW is intentionally moving away from and avoiding by their own admission. All this will do is force more different unit types on the board, huge imblanaces will still exist, fluffy theme lists will suffer, and people will find ways to abuse it just as with anything else.

Lezta
17-07-2012, 17:13
...yes, 6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, 2 devastator squads.

NO PREDATORS.
NO VINDICATORS.
NO TERMINATORS.
only "3+ armor spam".
exactly what i said. the holy competitive gamer virtue of "saturation". see? the battle company is a spam list.

this is how a REAL army operates:

"everything is infantry on foot" OR
"everythinbg is spec ops" OR
"everything is infantry on transports" OR
"everything is a tank".
exception: most tank divisions have additional infantry elements on transports, but always on transports. why? to cause saturation(in this case, of vehicles) i.e. the exact same reason optimized lists "spam".

you will never find a unit of "two tanks plus 40 infantry guys plus 20 infantry on transports plus 10 spec ops guys plus 10 spec ops on one helicopter". theres NO WAY such a unit can have cohesion. only via attachment for specific tasks. real armies always use units to "spam the same choices".

and this includes IG tank companies, IG infantry regiments, SM battle companies, etc.

I'll bite, although I probably shouldn't.

Firstly, read the first couple of paragraphs on page 190 of the main rule book. Concerning how the Imperial Guard fight (who are the closest to a 'real world' military). It explains how, yes, each regiment is made up exclusively of one type of thing (infantry, artillery etc). However - 'a wise Commander General will marshall his myriad divisions to fight as a combined arms force'. So, no, a unit spam list isn't fluffy.

Secondly a glance at the Marine Codex explains how most of them too fight as a combined arms force on the battlefield. I'm somewhat willing to concede that in general real-world military does work the way you say - although you've grossly simplified things for your own benefit. None of those fighting forces operate independently of each other without any support and they all work together in an operation as a cohesive whole. Ground troops might call in air support. Tank divisions need infantry support.

Regardless, 40k isn't a 'real-life' simulator. It's a fantasy battle game. In space.

I think we have to be careful how we define unit-spam anyway. I think for me it's when you see only a couple of choices in a list, each with exactly the same loadout. I wouldn't consider a Deathwing list with four squads of Terminators, a couple with a mix of lightning-claws and thunder-hammers and a couple more with storm-bolters and assault cannons, supported few of Dreadnoughts (one with las-cannon and missiles, another pair with assault-cannon and powerfist) to be a spam-list. Some effort has been made to add variety there. If you added a Land Raider I'd never even consider there any spam there.

I would consider it a spam list if it instead consisted of 4 squads of Terminators, all with Thunder-Hammer and Shield and a trio of Dreadnoughts all with auto-cannons.

Giving a list theme needn't be spamming anything.

ChaplainCharlie
17-07-2012, 20:42
Many posts about real-life armies, but all a bit wrong...
Let me educate you as an officer and with experience of real force organization charts.
As an example I'll use a Mechanized Fighting Brigade.

The Brogade has two companies of Mechanized infantry, two companies of battle tanks and a company of mechanized artillery. Everything is mechanized, but that's a mobility issue. In 40k terms, there are AV 12 Chimeras, AV11 Whirlwinds and AV14 Leman Russes. The infantry have their own support weapons such as mortars with them, but carry a lot less dedicated anti-tank weapons than an infantry regiment, because their own transports have anti-tank capabilities as do the organic battle tanks they are fighting alongside.
In addition to armor, artillery and infantry, the battle group has organic Anti-Air either mechanized or motorized. And because it works in close co-operation with high command, it often gets to utilise Close Air Support in the form of strafing fighters.
In the end, you have infantry, tanks, artillery both light and heavy, anti-air and even air support. It's called combined arms and is what almost all modern armies do.

The reason why France lost WW2 was not because Germany had tank spam, but because they had combined arms. Artillery and air power mauled the defence lines, the armor executed a breakthrough and avoided the strongest pockets and the infantry followed suite and mopped up the remnants.

You won't find any modern army that uses "infantry spam" to overwhelm enemies by exploiting their heavy AT being crap against infantry. Nor will you find exclusive heavy armor battallions that have no infantry support. Most, if not all modern armies have brigades that have a diverse set of assets organic to them (signals, combat engineers, artillery, anti-air and anti-tank) because in the real world, spam is too easy to counter. A squadron of A-10s makes short work of any "tank spam" and one barrage from TOS-1s engulfs any infantry horde in napalm within insants.

Variety is how real armies work, thus 40k should also favour diversity. And I think 6th actually does that for you. I don't see a clear Spam list like mech spam in 6th, because flyers, though deadly, are usually hard to manouver or fragile if hit. And all armies have access to hordes of S6-7 firepower.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 21:08
The armored companies in korea (I served in the 2nd batalion 72nd armor) also have scouting and infantry companies assigned to it as well as air support from attack helicopters, even though its primarily an armor brigade. You're right, and that's probably why I hate spam so much... a real army is made up of many elements, not just as many razorbacks as you can squeeze in lol.

CULCHAIN
17-07-2012, 21:29
I have always play fluff lists, I played steel legion before chimera spam was cool and chimeras were 70pts bare. I had to leave my all mech list out in 5th because it was now "broken". I was hoping in 6th I could bring them back because nothing is cooler then moving 8 chimeras and a few hellhounds around. Unfortunately, seems like there is a new reason to hate them.

ChaplainCharlie
17-07-2012, 21:43
If they're steel legion and painted to look like it, kick the opponent in the shin if he tries to mock you. It's a fluffy build! It's really easy to tell when an army is spam and when not. A dead giveaway is triplets of one unit (unless troops) and the lack of some force organization slots (ie. No fast attack, no elites, no heavy support)...

I wouldn't sweat about it though. Spam happens if it happens, but right now things look really good for the diversity of army lists. :)

Egaeus
17-07-2012, 21:44
Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!

I'm going to go another direction than other posters and claim that it's more GW's fault for not properly balancing units that causes spam.

For exaple, the Tyranid list has a very limited amount of reliable ranged anti-vehicle firepower. With the mechanized meta of 5th such firepower was vital. And so from the limted pool of units that perform a particular function you are going to spam those that are effective. Now with the terrible internal balance that the 'Nid codex has it's maybe not the best example in general, but I think it goes to the core of the problem: If "Unit A" does a particular job for equivalent or less points than other units in the book then why would one take anything else other than for the sake of "variety", at which point one is purposely gimping their list?

If units were truly different enough that they actually brought something different and useful to the table and were pointed well enough that you though you were getting a good value for their cost then you'd have a reason to make a varied army.

Chivs
17-07-2012, 22:24
Should there even be a distinction between a competitive list and a non competitive list based on where you're playing? The word 'Meta' should have no place in a wargame, apart from on a local level: Bob and Jim are both aircraft nuts and so like fielding Fliers - make sure you have a fair few skyfire weapons. You should never hear people use the phrase 'Well when do you ever see that taken', and conversely there shouldn't be a unit or weapon option that is mind-numbingly more practical to use than another.

Therefore this discussion shouldn't be happening. 'Spamming' (a horrible word) is something that should be an option for a player to use if they want, but not because it's a no brainer. You want to play a Steel Legion army (or a mechanised transport army as you should be able to use Cadian models and have as much justification as a guy with metals)? Fine, it's an option. Want to play an Ork Green Tide? Or an Eldar army with a large focus on Dire Avengers and Dark Reapers? A mono-god Chaos army? Necrons with waves of Warriors emerging from multiple monoliths? An Imperial guard Air-Cavalry army?
I don't list any of these because they're powerful or weak lists, but because they are themed options that will use a limited selection of units. They should be just as valid as a mixed force. They should also be just as valid as a Space Wolf army that has a large number of Long Fang squads as the player likes them for whatever damn reason he likes. They should all be valid options to play because if the game is not balanced due to these units, then the units need to be fixed!

You should never feel a need to ban armies of a multiple units, and you should never have to justify why you're taking them. Fluff vs Theme vs Power should not be discussed anywhere near as much as it does.

squeekenator
17-07-2012, 23:19
I'm still experimenting with it, but the core of my current army looks something like this:

Archon with agoniser, blaster, ghostplate armour

5 Kabalite Trueborn with two splinter cannons, three shardcarbines
- Venom with extra splinter cannon
5 Kabalite Trueborn with two splinter cannons, three shardcarbines
- Venom with extra splinter cannon

10 Kabalite Warriors with splinter cannon, blaster
- Raider
10 Kabalite Warriors with splinter cannon, blaster
- Raider
10 Kabalite Warriors with splinter cannon, blaster
- Raider
10 Kabalite Warriors with splinter cannon, blaster
- Raider

6 Reaver Jetbikes with two heat lances
6 Reaver Jetbikes with two heat lances

Ravager with night shields
Ravager with night shields
Ravager with night shields

Yep, that's right. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam. But hey, it's the army I want to play. Not because it's hyper-competitive, but because those are the units I like. I like shooty people in paper planes with more darklight weapons than they know what to do with. That's roughly how Dark Eldar rolled under their old codex, and since that's when I first got into them it's how I like to play even now. Raiders look really cool, and to me they're the unit that defines Dark Eldar, so I take a lot. Ravagers look really really cool, and they're so much fun to use. I don't care if razorwings or voidravens or whatever are better HS units, I don't care if they're worse HS units, I don't care whether it would increase variety. I like ravagers, so I take ravagers. Venoms I'm not sure about, I'm still strongly considering replacing them with raiders, since they look cooler - interestingly enough, venoms are apparently the more competitive choice, so increasing spam, by getting yet more raiders, would make my list less optimal. And yes, all my warriors and reavers are equipped the same. I like symmetrical armies. Call me crazy, but if I end up in a situation where I have five or ten points left over, I'd rather just not spend them and miss out on five or ten points than give one unit an upgrade without giving it to the others. Irrational, I know, but it just looks wrong. I'm not about to mess up all my armies just because you personally like your squads to all have different loadouts. If you don't like symmetry then fine, don't use symmetrical army lists. If you don't like min/maxed, competitive armies, then don't play against min/maxed competitive armies. But please don't confuse the two.

J.P. Biff
17-07-2012, 23:43
I find players that always field boring spam tend to get shunned anyway.

═nstead of enforcing your idea of fun just don't play them.

This, this right here ladies(?) and gentlemen!!

ChaplainCharlie
18-07-2012, 00:38
The thing is, as some games designers have themselves said said, GW has too many armies. Most of the big issues (IMO) comes from the fact that for some unspeakable reason the designers felt the need to separate Dark Angels, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Space Marines (in general) from oneanother. That's 5 out of the 16 Armies of 40k. All just a flavour of Space Marine. I do not count Grey Knights, because they are decidedly different. They are the pinnacle of small and elite. Even Space Marines can do a "horde" army of sorts. You can get about a hundred Marines in 1850 points. That's a lot of Space Marines...
The real problem with having 16 "different" armies is that they should all have a flavour of their own, but also be balanced against eachother. With the same company running two (or three) game systems with over a dozen armies each (and the few LotR ones to boot and specialists) resources can not be diverted to evenly update every faction to keep them balanced. Older Codecii will be outdated and because of the tedious response time to changes in the game's spirit and general playing style, the old books will be hard-pressed to cope. Even with a new codex every other month (and it's actually more like 4 books a year, not 6) it would take three years for GW to circulate the entire codex family. In reality, it takes four years. Because things change (sometimes quite a lot) four years response time or divination into the future is often the reason why things get unbalanced.

However, that should NOT be taken as an excuse to sloppily design the game. The individual codex should always be balanced and then the core rules set should be a balanced affair so that no unit type or strategy outshines the others by a clear margin. I personally blame the choice of D6, because it lacks subtlety (BS3 is crap and BS4 is awesome, yet the difference is just one better on the D6). But I digress. If the codex is designed in a balanced way, so that no one unit is clearly better at, say, anti-tank than others (or at least has some serious drawbacks) then things should be fine. 6th core rules seem to have balanced things out quite nicely. Some armies remain under-dogs and others have become really REALLY good, but once the codex rotation goes along, things should start evening out again and in a couple of years we'll have people whining why Necrons are so bad or Tyranids are just so OP. Because no amount of balance can cease the unending bitching and whining that is the Internet... ;)

EDMM
18-07-2012, 01:33
AdaptUK0, please go through the "Army Lists" subforum (link here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?36-Warhammer-40-000-Army-Lists) and find 5 examples of "Ctrl+C Ctrl+V" lists.

Repost them here with links, along with which page of the subforum you found them on.

I bet they are less common than you think.

I found one on the main page (a Necron list: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?346863-Necron-Air-Cavalry-1750), though a Deathwing list was close (but Deathwing).

Please, I'm not being sarcastic. Go through and let us know how common these lists really are.

TheDoctor
18-07-2012, 05:39
Call me crazy, but if I end up in a situation where I have five or ten points left over, I'd rather just not spend them and miss out on five or ten points than give one unit an upgrade without giving it to the others. Irrational, I know, but it just looks wrong.

Actually, I'm the same way. But it is more along the lines of "I will forget which one took what or even what I took"

CommissarTanith
18-07-2012, 06:02
I"m really curious as to whether or not you actually thought this would happen?

Bartali
18-07-2012, 08:26
Yay for the weekly thread telling a sub section of 40k players they're having wrong fun.

This one wants to ban wrong fun too :rolleyes:

Sons of Lorgar
18-07-2012, 09:26
I for one tend to have at least three of every combat vehicle variant I commonly play with, partly for redundancy but mostly to comply with my final vision of a glorious Word Bearer host with ordered mechanized mutant/traitor guard support troops, uncountable masses of chained slave-shields, scores of daemons and daemon engines and a score of dark mechanicum titans looming in the background while Legion thunderhawks, mutant/traitor-piloted gunships, Hell blades and Hell talons criss-cross the theatre with contrails.
So far, I've amassed roughly 100 vehicles (of which ~23 are Leman russ chassi ~12 chimeras, a chaos warhound, a thunderhawk, a number of superheavy tanks, three chaos fliers and three dread claws) and 400 infantry, roghly a third beeing traitor/mutant guardsmen and the rest Chaos marines and daemons. Mostly basic word bearer battle brothers.
When I make lists for gaming, I tend to select elements that would be representative for the size of deployment, with a focus on the auxiliaries, since they are expendable.

I've never cared one iota for comp-score or power builds or anything, if my decided list happens to conform to a netlist by chance (can't see how that'd happen though) that wouldn't matter to me either.

Blinder
18-07-2012, 16:10
This, this right here ladies(?) and gentlemen!!

(grr... wish the forum would include the whole thing but...)

The only times I've ever had trouble stomaching a "netlist" or "cheese" have all been when it was painfully obvious my opponent wanted to skip directly to tallying up his score. (ok, 'tis a bit of a lie, it *does* get annoying having to deal with some of the more egregious "no-brainer" choices, but for that I 95% blame the Codex) Googled up a "killer" list because you want to max out your chances in the game? As long as you're still there to *play the game* it shouldn't cause much tension in a casual game, and when there's a chance it will win you a prize I can't really fault anyone for optimizing... that's free plastic!

Do I prefer to play a game with a couple well-distributed FOC's? Certainly- more variety in the list means more flexibility on the field, generally. Of course, when you end up against a "spam" list, that is its own form of variety, as the game will play out differently than against a balanced list (or different spam). It's only when a dozen games in a row feel like my opponents are just handing the list to whomever is next in line that I think there's a real problem to be sorted out within the group, thankfully I haven't really had to deal with anything like that terribly much.

So, perhaps for the OP, the question shouldn't be about banning the use of anything within a list... it should be about creating a concensus to ensure the lists themselves are varied enough it doesn't get stale.

T10
18-07-2012, 16:40
I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout.

I think that is an interesting idea, but I don't really see how it's going to stick.

Player 1:... And here is my second unit of Tau warriors. Same size and kit as the first one, really.

Player 2: WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! The internet community has universally BANNED repeat units!

Player 1: Uh, well, I'm part of the internet community too, you know.

Player 2: So?

Player 1: So if I'm using repeat units then the ban is hardly "universal", is it?

Player 2: ... I need to make some changes to my army list.

Athariel
18-07-2012, 16:44
I think the OP's problem stems from his reply to my thread in the Army Section a few days ago for 1000 points of Aurora Chapter.

The Aurora chapter are known fluff wise for being able to field the most tanks. I like tanks a lot I even live near the tank museum. My list consisted of 3 predators which are really the cheapest real looking tanks I can get plus tac marines in Razorbacks and a Dread. It is difficult to field lots of armour in a 1000 point list but I don't have the models or money to buy models to change the list much and I don't currently have much time to play more than 1000 point battles with a new baby in the house.

I was asking about a slight change in the list for the 6th edition but still keeping the 3 predators just changing tac marines in razorbacks to tac marines in rhino's and the dread for some terminators.

He then made a snotty reply when I asked for help having had no response.

Make of it what you will but my situation makes it limited when I am wanting to play my preference of heavy armour optimal or not I don't care I just like tanks.

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2012, 17:46
Yay for the weekly thread telling a sub section of 40k players they're having wrong fun.

This one wants to ban wrong fun too :rolleyes:

This, plus Pyriel crushed the thread in the first few posts.

1. Spam is effective.
2. There is a time and a place for 'most effective' lists.

Thats all there is to it. Some books allow for effective forces to be built multiple ways, some do not. If you want to be effective you either build to fit your own local meta, or you suffer the consequences.

Like IcedCrow said, optimization will always happen, always, unless hard rules are put in place (0-1) which a lot of people hated.

Vaktathi
18-07-2012, 18:11
Even with 0-1 restrictions, optimization will happen. You'll shift what you see on the table yes, but the balance issues will still exist, perhaps more as books are not designed with 0-1 restrictions in mind.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 22:20
I've got a crazy idea; why don't we just not worry about what other people want to field in their lists. :) I know I have enough time working on my own lists and models that it seems kind of silly to stress about what the other guy is playing. I'm not sure why I (or anyone) feels they should get a say in what someone else puts on the table. Let's break things down:

1. Non-Competitive Gamer:
If you are only interested in the narrative fun of your fight, why do you care what your opponent fields? Repetition in his/her units only gives you cool points doesn't it? Besides, most non-competitive types claim they don't care about winning. Seems to me that whether or not your opponent creates a min/max list should be entirely moot to you. The only reason someone would be interested in trying to force others into different kinds of lists is if they want to somehow create a "balance" they prefer. Balance only matters if you care about competition. In short, if you are a non-competitive gamer the other person's list shouldn't matter to you.

2. Competitive Gamer:
The list really shouldn't matter to you beyond a professional interest in it. They have their models and you have yours. If you are annoyed by the imbalance created by Games Workshop, don't hate the playa, hate the game. :) If you come to the table you have accepted that the fights aren't all going to be fair and thus their lists shouldn't matter to you. Besides, as a competitive gamer you probably have the best troop combination you could manage as well.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-07-2012, 23:19
"I will forget which one took what or even what I took"This became such a problem for me that I started just putting the exact same upgrades on all my vehicles. :p

Chem-Dog
19-07-2012, 03:35
I'll bite, although I probably shouldn't.

Firstly, read the first couple of paragraphs on page 190 of the main rule book. Concerning how the Imperial Guard fight (who are the closest to a 'real world' military). It explains how, yes, each regiment is made up exclusively of one type of thing (infantry, artillery etc). However - 'a wise Commander General will marshall his myriad divisions to fight as a combined arms force'. So, no, a unit spam list isn't fluffy.

If I may....

"a wise and incredibly lucky Commander General will marshal his myriad divisions to fight as a combined arms force where possible. Assuming his forces aren't fragmented by Warp Storms, Administrative Error, Miscommunication, Unexpected demise, Inquisitorial requisition/Investigation and any other organisational impediments and that all forces are correctly equipped with all gear pertinent to the fulfilment of their mission.

Unit Spam, in the IG is very fluffy.

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-07-2012, 06:32
If all you want is fluffy then 40k is played at such a small scale that any combination of units you might think of is pretty fluffy. It can always just be one specific unit/formation/task force. Or it could be part of a larger force and so contains a mix of units. And of course the fluff is written in such a way that you can justify everything(or very nearly everything) so its a pretty useless guideline for hard and fast composition rules. And then we are back to trying to force others to play the game/have fun in the way we want. Something always best solved by talking about what you want from the game with your group rather tjan stamping your foot, declaring you have found the holy grail of "correct" wargaming and demanding other conform.

KingDeath
19-07-2012, 10:03
@Pyriel - Sounds like you're more interested in just playing a game to win rather than the hobby as a whole package. If you don't want to paint/model miniatures you can play the PC game, or maybe heroclix - I hear they supply models pre-painted.

Ah yes, the mythical "hobby" which forces everyone who wants to "stay true" to it to play in a similar way.

KingDeath
19-07-2012, 10:25
Many posts about real-life armies, but all a bit wrong...
Let me educate you as an officer and with experience of real force organization charts.
As an example I'll use a Mechanized Fighting Brigade.

The Brogade has two companies of Mechanized infantry, two companies of battle tanks and a company of mechanized artillery. Everything is mechanized, but that's a mobility issue. In 40k terms, there are AV 12 Chimeras, AV11 Whirlwinds and AV14 Leman Russes. The infantry have their own support weapons such as mortars with them, but carry a lot less dedicated anti-tank weapons than an infantry regiment, because their own transports have anti-tank capabilities as do the organic battle tanks they are fighting alongside.
In addition to armor, artillery and infantry, the battle group has organic Anti-Air either mechanized or motorized. And because it works in close co-operation with high command, it often gets to utilise Close Air Support in the form of strafing fighters.
In the end, you have infantry, tanks, artillery both light and heavy, anti-air and even air support. It's called combined arms and is what almost all modern armies do.

The reason why France lost WW2 was not because Germany had tank spam, but because they had combined arms. Artillery and air power mauled the defence lines, the armor executed a breakthrough and avoided the strongest pockets and the infantry followed suite and mopped up the remnants.

You won't find any modern army that uses "infantry spam" to overwhelm enemies by exploiting their heavy AT being crap against infantry. Nor will you find exclusive heavy armor battallions that have no infantry support. Most, if not all modern armies have brigades that have a diverse set of assets organic to them (signals, combat engineers, artillery, anti-air and anti-tank) because in the real world, spam is too easy to counter. A squadron of A-10s makes short work of any "tank spam" and one barrage from TOS-1s engulfs any infantry horde in napalm within insants.

Variety is how real armies work, thus 40k should also favour diversity. And I think 6th actually does that for you. I don't see a clear Spam list like mech spam in 6th, because flyers, though deadly, are usually hard to manouver or fragile if hit. And all armies have access to hordes of S6-7 firepower.

Variety is rarely achieved at a company or, depending on the army in question, even batallion level, which more or less is what most 40k engagements encompass. Simply adding a tank or two to an infantry company would not be a combined arms approach but the french mistake ( slight exageration of the french mistake ).

Archibald_TK
19-07-2012, 10:51
Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!

What do you guys think? Not only is this incredibly boring to play against, it takes all the fun out of planning an effective army list composed of multiple unit types!
So what you are saying is that you do not understand how these people find it fun to play that way and thus they shall all disappear from your sight so that only remain your own perception of what the game shall be, as you have a better understanding of it than other lowly gamers. Alas I find such an egoistical thought to be quite sad. :(

I paint my models for I value the beauty of the object, I play for the challenge of winning for it is what I value in the game. I want my opponent to have a strong army, to play without mercy, and to play by the rules. I do not like underperforming army lists for I consider them a waste of my time, they are incredibly boring to play against and I tend to find that the people who think that winning has no value also consider that it makes cheating and bending the rules acceptable, which is a thing I abhor. Yet you will not see me barging into the forum ranting about how all shall bow to my perception of the game, because the other are actually enjoying playing it their way.

You want people to play your game, I play mine.

Athariel
19-07-2012, 12:27
The thread link to which the OP is really referring to

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?346033-1000pts-Aurora-Chapter

RandomThoughts
19-07-2012, 12:42
Hi Guys, AdaptUK0 here!

Just a quick question. I'm getting pretty fed up of seeing people post/use army lists that look like they've been created by a primary school IT class. An example:

grey knight squad
psycannon
razorback
psycannon

Dreadnought
2 autocannons, psybolt ammo

Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
LIST FINISHED

Don't you think with these expansive codecies, people have plenty of choices so why not use them. I propose that we should universally ban lists that contain more than 2 units that have the exact same loadout. In all fairness each codex should contain units that have 0-1, 0-2 entries to reduce this, but GW aren't that smart!

What do you guys think? Not only is this incredibly boring to play against, it takes all the fun out of planning an effective army list composed of multiple unit types!

I think you miss something essential: There are two different approaches at work here:

Approach one is yours: There's lots of stuff, use all of it, have fun. I sometimes do that myself, it's what's usually called the "casual" gamestyle.

On the otherhand there's the competitive style. Lists get optimized to the max, the same way Ferrari and Hondo and Mercedes optimize their Formula One cars to the max. With everyone bringing similarly optimized lists, the game itself comes back to skill. Same way Formula One pilots depend on their cars being mostly equal to have a competition with their co-drivers.

Of course, now we have this one dude in a VW van with a psychodelic paint job rolling up next to them, asking them why the F they all drive the same car when there are far more interesting options out there they never even considerer...

AdaptUK0
19-07-2012, 12:45
145764

I often find to get a post noticed, you have to make a rash statement. This is often the way of the interwebs. You don't feed a bunch of hungry lions a bunch of veggies, you throw them a hunk of meat. So although my original statement may have been very over-the-top, many people have replied!

What I'd like to know is how many people here on warseer make a list before you buy models for an army? When you see some models you like, but are very MEH in terms of delivering in a game - would you still field them? Surely if you bought an army that contains so many duplicates of one unit it's hard to diversify the list.

I've just got back into the hobby - and purchased a new army. I've purchased a few transports, fliers, heavy vehicles, HQ choices, troops, elites and FA choices. This in total makes up to a 2k list with no unit being repeated more than once. This gives me the option of fielding multiple different types of 1500pt list, 1k list etc...Don't you find that if you don't buy an army that's very copy+paste, you'll often be left with one list you play over, and over, and over again? There is no variation from the standard, thus being quite dull to field over and over again?

I know some armies play differently, guard/nids it's harder to get away with not fielding duplicates. I've started using the boards more for ideas but so many army lists posted look like direct copies of other lists, there is no diversity. Maybe it's part of the game that's somewhat been ruined by the internet. Less about studying the codex and coming up with a fun interesting list and more about who can google the most low cost over effective list. Back in the day where you were praised for finding a great combination of troops, now it's no more than 3 clicks away.

I'd like to see more games/scenarios that disadvantage people that don't put some thought into the different options in the FOC. A balanced list should always come out on top - combined arms being the most effective way of defeating an enemy.

Pyriel
19-07-2012, 12:59
interesting. see why i duplicate with my Black Templars:

-troops choice: crusaders squad.

for this choice, lets say i wanna do close combat. it SUCKS. i can get bp & ccw for free, as well as Rage USR for next to no cost. it still sucks if i want to attempt to get 1st place on a big tournament, and even sucks for the practice games i play beforehand. i can get more squad members, like 10 marines + 10 scouts + powerfist + meltagun. the best equipment. that is... 285 points of FAIL. OR, if i realy wanna stick to cc, spend 285 points for "5 marines, bp & ccw, powerfist" and have THREE powerfists instead of one? i mean, by taking " two 5-man squads with powerfist " i can be so much more effective compared to "one ten-man squad, only one powerfist, sucker!" (its all about the powerfist/weapon)! if i use one large unit, instead of repetition of multiple small units, i am not allowed tot ake the same wargear, and wargear>troopers.

hence, my lists look like: 5-man squad full wargear, repeat 3x.
in 5th especialy, a Razorback with TLLC was TONS more powerful than the whole squad put together. why not take as many as possible by buying lots of small squads as a mere excuse to take many razorbacks?

sadly, my codex has given me NO incentive to take some full squad instead of repetitive small ones.

AdaptUK0
19-07-2012, 13:08
interesting. see why i duplicate with my Black Templars:

-troops choice: crusaders squad.

for this choice, lets say i wanna do close combat. it SUCKS. i can get bp & ccw for free, as well as Rage USR for next to no cost. it still sucks if i want to attempt to get 1st place on a big tournament, and even sucks for the practice games i play beforehand. i can get more squad members, like 10 marines + 10 scouts + powerfist + meltagun. the best equipment. that is... 285 points of FAIL. OR, if i realy wanna stick to cc, spend 285 points for "5 marines, bp & ccw, powerfist" and have THREE powerfists instead of one? i mean, by taking " two 5-man squads with powerfist " i can be so much more effective compared to "one ten-man squad, only one powerfist, sucker!" (its all about the powerfist/weapon)! if i use one large unit, instead of repetition of multiple small units, i am not allowed tot ake the same wargear, and wargear>troopers.

hence, my lists look like: 5-man squad full wargear, repeat 3x.
in 5th especialy, a Razorback with TLLC was TONS more powerful than the whole squad put together. why not take as many as possible by buying lots of small squads as a mere excuse to take many razorbacks?

sadly, my codex has given me NO incentive to take some full squad instead of repetitive small ones.

Ok so what you're saying is that you've chosen an army (black templars) because of their fluff? Or because you can have a 5 man squad of marines that have rage and a power fist for little cost? If all the other options suck, why not paint your army as black templars and use the standard marine codex? With the allies rules you could have a normal marine army (painted as black templars) and an allied detachment of codex:black templars. This way you can field a few units from the dex you really like, and still have some standard marine units (like tactical squads) which reduces the need for that bad option you have for troops.

Either way, I personally liked the edition of the marine codex that let you choose traits, ridding the need for these individual books (and gave custom chapters some great fluffy choices that people liked!)

Pyriel
19-07-2012, 13:40
i have chosen codex: Black Templars for the chapter's fluff. what i'm saying is, the codex STRONGLY discourages me adhering to the fluff. it encourages me to play las/plas 5-man squads, since i gain NO bonus for fielding larger squads.

the fact is, the codex also encourages a shooting style of play instead of a cc style of play; shooting is done via ignoring bolters and spamming wargear, i.e. special/heavy weapons, which my codex is good at(since my units can take 2 special/heavies per 5-man squad); cc is done via ignoring chainswords/bolt pistols, ignoring the humble marine, and spamming wargear, i.e. powerfists and powerweapons, which my codex is bad at(since i have NO units that can take enough power weapons/fists except terminators; not even my command squads and other elites, they cant take more than a couple! thats insane, vanilla marines make a FAR beter cc list)

the only reason i dont use other codices is i am a fluff loyalist, hence i would consider it a betrayal to my faction if i chose another codex. when i go to a tournament i feel like i am representing my codex-like, if a BT player beats a close friend of mine in a tournament, i will be glad cause "BT got another win", like we are a team.

Harbinger
19-07-2012, 17:28
145764

What I'd like to know is how many people here on warseer make a list before you buy models for an army? When you see some models you like, but are very MEH in terms of delivering in a game - would you still field them? Surely if you bought an army that contains so many duplicates of one unit it's hard to diversify the list.

I've just got back into the hobby - and purchased a new army. I've purchased a few transports, fliers, heavy vehicles, HQ choices, troops, elites and FA choices. This in total makes up to a 2k list with no unit being repeated more than once. This gives me the option of fielding multiple different types of 1500pt list, 1k list etc...Don't you find that if you don't buy an army that's very copy+paste, you'll often be left with one list you play over, and over, and over again? There is no variation from the standard, thus being quite dull to field over and over again?

I'd like to see more games/scenarios that disadvantage people that don't put some thought into the different options in the FOC. A balanced list should always come out on top - combined arms being the most effective way of defeating an enemy.

1) I buy a model if it looks good or if I can convert it. I play Chaos, so, hacking apart model kits is the norm. I field units based upon their rules and if it fits my theme: Mechanized Black legion, with Infantry support.

2) I think a perosn's army list will be as varied as they want it to be. I know people who have their 2000 point tournament list and no more. I know others who rotate between their mechanized, infantry, and jump troop lists. I think telling anyone what style of list they should make begins to border on the micromanagemnt of a creative process. Having an FOC is a good thing as it helps make an army opposed to Herohammer. But a person should be allowed to make a spam-tournament list or their fluffy gretchin warboss list. I think the sportsmanship is more important if two such lists met, and a person should realize not everyone plays the same style. As a side note, a friend of mine plays tournaments, and he likes playing against my army as I do not and it offers a variation for him. It gives him that surprise of Army X is not doing what Army X is supposed to do. Sometimes he wins, sometimes he does not. Just a side note, but the two so-called styles are completey separate.

3) Outside of friendly/non-tournament games, I do not think scenarios should disadvantage anyone. I think those scenario types are great as they add a new perspective, challenge, and make great capmaigns. I do not play tournaments, but from what I know it is supposed to be a gamer and the codex not random penalties because you played on Tuesday when it was raining. If it is a standard rule, like the mysterious terrain, then I do not think it is an issue as it affects both players equally, so to speak.

EDMM
19-07-2012, 18:27
List first, then purchase then pay someone to paint.

It's a waste of my money to do it any other way.

Egaeus
19-07-2012, 20:06
What I'd like to know is how many people here on warseer make a list before you buy models for an army? When you see some models you like, but are very MEH in terms of delivering in a game - would you still field them? Surely if you bought an army that contains so many duplicates of one unit it's hard to diversify the list.

First, my disclaimer that I haven't actually bought any new models in years, although I still have hundreds of dollars worth of unopened/unassembled models that I still haven't used.

My primary army is counts-as Black Templars. They were actually my second Marine army which I started when the "new" Rhino model was coming out because I was tired of my original marine army which I basically played as a gunline and wanted something mobile...it didn't hurt that back in 3rd "Rhino Rush" was king and having what amounted to assault troops as basic troops was powerful. But even for this army it was more about what models I felt like picking up here and there so there was never strictly a list that I was building towards, as I would often change my composition based on the units I felt like using at the time I was creating the list.

My second army was Tyranids (although they are technically me second army as I started them before my Templars). I purchased a Tyranid army box on clearance at the LGS...it was the 2nd edition models and I had to use the BBB army list as the 3rd Ed 'Nid book wouldn't be released for some time (just to give some sense of time frame).

I have the beginnings of Chaos army that I purchased when the 3.5 codex was released...the army deals they did back then were actually pretty good, and while it did help that that particular Codex was very good the main reason I bought it was because I really liked the Raptor and Obliterator models (both of which were included in the deal). Of course I never got around to do anything with this army so it's still in a box at my parents' house gathering dust.

Hmm...I'm realizing that I don't really do "list then purchase". I suppose that if I were to start a new army I might look at constructing a list to determine what I needed to purchase, but it might just as well be picking up some core units and then deciding what else I wanted to have.


Don't you find that if you don't buy an army that's very copy+paste, you'll often be left with one list you play over, and over, and over again? There is no variation from the standard, thus being quite dull to field over and over again?

I'm not sure if you meant that double negative? I think it depends on your venue and model collection...even if one has a wide range of models to choose from, if you gravitate towards the ones that are effective for you then you are likely to end up with a single list that you play repeatedly. It doesn't seem to me that it would matter that much that every unit is different if you still just play the same list. So having a fixed say 1500 point list is still a fixed list no matter how much variety is involved. On that note my regular opponent when I first started playing 40K played Orks and actually laminated a copy of his army list...so it's pretty obvious that he wasn't going to make alterations to that list. I was always tinkering with my list, not necessary to make it better against his army but simply to try out different units.


I know some armies play differently, guard/nids it's harder to get away with not fielding duplicates. I've started using the boards more for ideas but so many army lists posted look like direct copies of other lists, there is no diversity. Maybe it's part of the game that's somewhat been ruined by the internet. Less about studying the codex and coming up with a fun interesting list and more about who can google the most low cost over effective list. Back in the day where you were praised for finding a great combination of troops, now it's no more than 3 clicks away.

As I said in my previous post I think this is more the fault of GW having poor design and pricing of units in the game. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that there are objectively "better" units than others. If two units do the same basic job but one does it better and/or costs less then that is what people are going to take if they want to "be competitive". Unless those other units bring something useful to the table there is simply no reason to field them...and looking at it from a game perspective "looking cool" really isn't worth any points. :p

I guess I find it somewhat ironic that I really don't like the direction the game has been going in every unit having multiple special rules (to me it just makes the game overly complicated and can bog things down) but at the same time I can see the argument that this is a good thing in that it really allows the designers to truly differentiate units and has the potential to allow them to make varied units viable. That is, you can have more detail that just "shooty" and "assault" troops.


I'd like to see more games/scenarios that disadvantage people that don't put some thought into the different options in the FOC. A balanced list should always come out on top - combined arms being the most effective way of defeating an enemy.

Perhaps you should try to find a copy of the 3rd edition rulebook. The scenarios were broken into types with each type having its own FOC. The big issue was that only one section used the "standard" FOC so most people just made lists for that, so a whole host of missions were rarely used.


the fact is, the codex also encourages a shooting style of play instead of a cc style of play; shooting is done via ignoring bolters and spamming wargear, i.e. special/heavy weapons, which my codex is good at(since my units can take 2 special/heavies per 5-man squad); cc is done via ignoring chainswords/bolt pistols, ignoring the humble marine, and spamming wargear, i.e. powerfists and powerweapons, which my codex is bad at(since i have NO units that can take enough power weapons/fists except terminators; not even my command squads and other elites, they cant take more than a couple! thats insane, vanilla marines make a FAR beter cc list)

The big thing that always gets me with this is that before the Armageddon book the Black Templars were just another Codex chapter...and as such they should encourage shooting over assault. Even though Templars prefer close combat they are still Marines and the holy bolter is still their primary weapon.

In my army my ratio of bolter to close combat models is about 2:1, although I also fall into the 5-man squads with a heavy weapon (and typically they are just that), but that is more an artefact of they way the game is written (as in so many cases fluff <> rules).

I really hope that whenever they do the new codex they get bolter, bolt pistol and close combat weapon...as well as finally getting grenades for free (unless I missed that in a FAQ but I don't think so).