PDA

View Full Version : Net.List -Is it a problem for GW?



Lion El Jason
28-11-2005, 22:43
So every tournament these days includes about 70% of people there with around 3 near identical lists.

People decide on their army then choose a list off the internet that basically has been played by dozens of groups across the world and is reconed to be the most "Competitive" min/maxed beardy list you can make.

Minor tweaks by each player are virtualy un-noticable past the 40 or so Ulthwe Starcannon lists or all the four-ordinance Iron Warriors lists (With Las/plas Troops choices and Obliterators!) or whatever else is big on the net at the time.


It seems not only is there no sense or fun in these armies but people are going onto the net, collecting these armies and using them in normal play, corrupting the game further than the tournaments.

This is something that happens in Magic: The Gathering where the most tuned version of the main deck archetype will usually win any given event. 40k is fast turning into this type of game where a few people develop a list and dozens of jabronis blindly follow by collecting the army from some forum.

IMO part of the skill of the game is designing an army list, be it all comers or to beat your specific opponent. Not only does this take away a large part of the game but it means theres no variety in the armies we face.

Am I on my own here or does anyone else think its a problem?

Edit: Oops, wrong forum!

imrhati
28-11-2005, 22:57
really, were might one find such army lists?

NorthernMike
28-11-2005, 22:59
I think this may be the problem with tournies, but then I don't like the way GW and RT tournies are generally set up (not like real tournies IMO).

But as far as the List.Net thing goes, there is not much you can do against it. Peopple want to win, and those who want to win enough don't always care about having fun, like putting a list together themselves. Also from what I have seen, list making is still mostly personal preference for causual gamers. Most people who post lists on here that are just for fun just want slight suggestions, and often disregard what may make their list even better, because of something they like for their fluff/ the models/ or just "cause" (rattlings/ogryns and mortars come to mind).

I don't think that the tournie scene is what carries GW anyways, it is the casual gamers.

Anaxagorax
28-11-2005, 23:02
Couldn't agree more, year by year the lists at tournaments get more and more similar and I also think forums are a major cause to the problem. Many new players doesn't seem to want to learn how to play by trial and error, they just want a winning list. It's just a lot easier for people like that to just copy a list off the net or post a list and change it according to other peoples advice, than to learn how to play with a list they've made because they like the models/fluff/whatever.

Damn boring if you ask me. Maybe we should start a movement giving 'bad' advice on the army list forum? :)

:) Anax

starlight
28-11-2005, 23:03
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but GW simple *doesn't care* what you bring to Tournaments. They don't care if everyone brings the identical list and mashed it out. GW games are *not* designed for tournaments and they are only held because of demand. If GW had a better way to get free publicity, they would but *for now* they don't.

What they *do* care about are two things and *only* two things:

1) Did you have fun?
2) Can they make money?

if you have fun, you tell your friends and get more people involved, GW makes more money.

If they make money on the actual event, they are even happier ensuring that it will happen again next year.

What you bring to play with is completely irrelevant in their eyes.

And Anax: Working at GW, we actually debated doing that.:D

Robot 2000
28-11-2005, 23:26
I just bought models I thought looked cool and made army lists with them in. Am I doing something wrong? :eek:

starlight
28-11-2005, 23:32
Nope. No way. Absolutely not!

As long as you:

a) are having fun playing *your* way

and

b) recognise that *most* (but by no means all) tournament players are going to win *something*(overall/general/painting/players choice/sportsman).

I've been *in* tournaments and I've Staffed Tournaments and I'd do both again, but I'm *absolutely* there to make friends and have fun. If I win something, bonus.:D

Aurelien
28-11-2005, 23:33
I dont think that the Lists at the NZ GT were similar, I thought there was a great variety...care to back me up Dev?

Lots of neat things.

Zabuza
28-11-2005, 23:51
I'm with Robot 2000
I always just bought the models I thought looked cool and made a list out of those.
I don't win very often, but I have lots of fun with my games.

Oblivion
29-11-2005, 00:01
This all seems to be very strange to me. Over here we have a very limited gaming group (perth is the most isolated city in the world). If someone was to bring a highly tuned list around they would be branded as designing bad lists, and generally no one would want to play them. I've barely seen many high tuners.

Seriously ive never seen more than 1 wraithlord in an army (except in iyanden) over at the tornaments here.:eek: No siren princes. The worst has to be armoured company, but they disappear quite fast when no on wants to play them.

Every list I've seen has something which makes it unique around here.

Im going to the Perth GT in 2 weeks so i might be proved wrong :D

Marikano
29-11-2005, 00:03
The game ideally should support both fun players and competitive players. Neither is "right" or "wrong".

To be honest (and probably unpopular), the game probably SHOULD try more to appeal to competitive players, mainly by working harder on game balance issues. I mean, if you play the game for fun, you're probably going to enjoy it either way, while unbalanced rules will push away competitive players and reduce the overall number of people in the game.

And whatever your opinion on competitive vs. fun, I think we all agree that the more players the better :)

starlight
29-11-2005, 00:08
More players who are tolerant? Yes!

More players who insist that everyone play like them? NO!

GW Games were never intended to be competitive.

zendral
29-11-2005, 00:13
I just bought models I thought looked cool and made army lists with them in. Am I doing something wrong?

Yeah same with me, im only happy playing with something that looks good, i.e. my thousand sons. I love to think of army lists and good tactics, but getting army lists from other people are just dumb. should be something in tournies that randomly deny certain parts of a force organization chart, so those people with garunteed winning armies will botch it. The general should be graded on how well he/she adapts to the changes on the battlefield. not a garunteed list that just has to blow things away.

starlight
29-11-2005, 00:32
Theme is everything, winning is for whiners.:p

Seriously folks, it's *GAME* played with *TOYS*.:eyebrows:

If winning at such an activity is more important than having fun, I'd be very concerned with how that person handles disappointment in real life. Plunk down the models, roll the dice, have brew. Pretty much sums up my attitude.:D

This is not to say that I'm not totally ruthless with my 'Gaunts or Grots, or that I won't flank you if you leave yourself exposed. What it *does* mean is that at the end of the game, I can shake hands, buy you a brew and move on to the next game without caring who actually *won*.

imrhati
29-11-2005, 01:22
seriously what website can u find lists at cus i need help.

AgentZero
29-11-2005, 01:26
So every tournament these days includes about 70% of people there with around 3 near identical lists.

People decide on their army then choose a list off the internet that basically has been played by dozens of groups across the world and is reconed to be the most "Competitive" min/maxed beardy list you can make.

Minor tweaks by each player are virtualy un-noticable past the 40 or so Ulthwe Starcannon lists or all the four-ordinance Iron Warriors lists (With Las/plas Troops choices and Obliterators!) or whatever else is big on the net at the time.


It seems not only is there no sense or fun in these armies but people are going onto the net, collecting these armies and using them in normal play, corrupting the game further than the tournaments.

This is something that happens in Magic: The Gathering where the most tuned version of the main deck archetype will usually win any given event. 40k is fast turning into this type of game where a few people develop a list and dozens of jabronis blindly follow by collecting the army from some forum.

IMO part of the skill of the game is designing an army list, be it all comers or to beat your specific opponent. Not only does this take away a large part of the game but it means theres no variety in the armies we face.

Am I on my own here or does anyone else think its a problem?

Edit: Oops, wrong forum!

MTG was okay until Ice Age came out. Once IA hit the scene it was all over. The Icey Manipulator denial decks were the death of good honest play.
I know I know, there were Type 1 decks built exclusively for the endless turn combo etc.... but the Type 2 format was where the action was and once the IA block came into play the game's tourny environment turned sour as "power gamers" started getting involved in ever larger numbers.
I know. I was a retailer and tourny judge back then. I saw it.


Dude, we're far past the point of "40K is fast becoming this.." with regards to the spineless thoughtless players so willing and eager to whoring min/maxed army lists for the sole purpose of winning at all costs. Monkey see monkey do. It's a ship of fools I would like to see sunk ASAP.

First off, the game has been dumbed down since 2nd edition.
When GW says they're "streamlining the rules" what they mean is "we're making it better for lazy people to play". Everything gets watered down and eventually we'll be at a point where all the armies share the same stats.

Add to that GW does nothing to prevent min/max vultures from participating in their big events. There should be built in rules and regulations that hurt/hinder min/maxers.
The game is not about maxing out Starcannons ( an example! ) and the tourny rules should reflect that.
The diversity and complexity of the game should be showcased at it's best in the big events, but instead we have people with no intergrity using min/maxed lists having the audacity to think they're good players.

Second, the gaming environment allows for cheese players to propagate.
There is no scarlet letter to be worn by these people. They operate freely because the gaming environment is too weak and unfocused to promote good fair honest gameplay.
You have the few people who wish to see such an atmosphere exist , then there are the lazy people who say they'd like to see the same thing but do NOTHING on their part to promote such ideals , add to the mix the spineless grots who stand behind the defense of "people should be able to play what they want" without any regard to the overall health of the game as a whole , mainly because they're lazy and/or blind , and finally add in the vultures who don't care. They're in it for themselves and they'll do everything they can to get away with pushing the limits.Which in most cases turns out to be corruptions along the lines of min/max players.
Combined with the endless numbers of people who whine and complain about everything in the game from stat lines to points costs ........it's just a mired mess of ineptitude.

Real simple:

1. If you use min/maxed lists , you're not a real player. You're a fraud.
2. If you're a habitual complainer , you're not a real player. You're a whiner.
3. Real players create their armies to perform in a fashion of their liking without reducing their army list to a numbers equation in an attempt to aquire the maximum advantages with the minimal requirements. A real player enjoys the full spectrum of options available to him/her/it in their army lists. Real players don't sit on their hands and have hissy fits because they think some aspect of an army or some other component of the game is unfair. They just deal with it and continue playing. Because a real player knows there is a proper way to deal with such things.

If anyone ever really wants to see changes made to the rules, you send your info to GW. Create a potential dialogue. Whining in a forum about Wraithlords being "too tough" or the points value of a weapon will NOT make your fairy grandmother appear. She will not wave her magic wand and make everything better fo you. Deal with it. Stop wasting your time crying and start playing more games and try having fun instead.
If enough people contact GW with regards to changing something that's potentially broken , they'll listen. But you need to do it like an intelligent person, not a crybaby brat. Be concise and and honest.

ReDavide
29-11-2005, 02:00
I think the supposed dominance of internet-tuned army lists is all in your head.

Here are the armies from the last 4 US Grand Tournaments who won the most battles:

2005 Chicago GT battle winners:
1st. Thousand Sons
2nd & 3rd (tied): Feral Orks & Crimson Fists.

2005 Seattle GT battle winners:
1st. Blood Angels
2nd through 5th (tied): Tyranids, Iron Hands, Mortifactors, Night Lords.

2005 Minneapolis GT battle winners:
1st through 3rd (tied): Wych Cult, Iron Warriors, Tyranids
4th: Tau

2005 Baltimore GT battle winners:
1st: Death Guard
2nd: Ultramarines
3rd: Blood Angels

Now, if you ask me, that looks like a pretty good mix. These are the battle result winners mind you - there's no composition or sportsmanship in these scores. And, well, aside from the single Iron Warriors player, I don't see any army that screams "I'm a cookie-cutter force!" Tau? Night Lords? Feral Orks? Thousand Sons? Wyches? These are armies that stray toward the weak side, not powergamer ones.

So maybe your local gaming group is full of unimaginative players, or maybe there are in fact a lot of powergaming armies at tournaments, but their players are too stupid to win games. Either way, I don't see 40k descending into Magicdom.

brother_fandango
29-11-2005, 02:21
all infantry space marine armies pown. o idont care how many times i get beat, they are just soo flexible to feild... 15 heavy bolters? no problem! 15 lascannons? im there. mobility? slap rockets on em. simple. gets best sportsmanship and general all the time.

Theadium
29-11-2005, 02:31
Damn boring if you ask me. Maybe we should start a movement giving 'bad' advice on the army list forum? :)

:) Anax

I'd Be up for that...

"Why are you using Ork Boyz? USE GROTS!"

"Dont Use Obliterators, use Imperial Traitors!"

"Landraider? Since when did one of them make thier points back? A rhino is the way to go!"

"Deamon Prince? 200 Points? Lieutenant, 45 points!"

"4 Lascannons? 4 Lasguns!"

:evilgrin: I CAN SEE IT NOW! AT THE NEXT RTT PEOPLE WILL BE USING GROTS AND GUARD AND CHEAP LORDS AND NO HEAVY WEAPONS! MY PATH TO VICTORY IS SET!!!!

Zabuza
29-11-2005, 02:49
Diabolical indeed

starlight
29-11-2005, 02:59
http://ca.games-workshop.com/news/cn/events/GT-2002-CN/coverage/Vancouver/WFB/Dave_Muzia/interview.htm

Check this guy out.:evilgrin:

sulla
29-11-2005, 05:06
So every tournament these days includes about 70% of people there with around 3 near identical lists.

People decide on their army then choose a list off the internet that basically has been played by dozens of groups across the world and is reconed to be the most "Competitive" min/maxed beardy list you can make.

...snip...

Am I on my own here or does anyone else think its a problem?



I dunno if these problems are real problems or net problems to be hinest... It's sort of like the groupies out there who hang on every word of certain guys and follow their posts with 'Yeah, so-and-so knows what he's talking about'...
I don't know how many of those 'rate my army' posts actually eventuate on the tabletop.

But those 'paint by numbers' armies on sites like this one are annoying, if only because they are just number-crunchers; they all work on a policy of eliminating risk rather than maximising possibility. The other gripe I have about them is that they are all made with the assumption that they will be facing marines (and usuallly on a featureless battlefield).

When I make a new army, I start with all the stuff I like, and then slowly remove the stuff I can't use successfully and add in stuff I can until I have a good balanced force of stuff I like and stuff that works (hopefully the same thing) that is hopefully capable of handling a wide variety of missions vs a wide variety of enemies.

I understand the approach must be different for tourney players and don't begrudge them their low-risk strategy, but it's not something I could bring myself to do...:angel:

Sulla

geoffkemp
29-11-2005, 08:22
I just bought models I thought looked cool and made army lists with them in. Am I doing something wrong? :eek:

That is pretty much what I do, it is a bonus if they are an effective unit too IMO

Marikano
29-11-2005, 09:56
Why is it "wrong" to enjoy the tactical aspects of the game more than the modelling aspects? Isn't it OK to enjoy both?

Personally, I hate "cookie-cutter" lists. I play the game more for the story than anything else. I LOVE Kill Team, and spend more time on BFG than W40K or Fantasy, so I'm not at all a power gamer, but having said that, why is it bad form to say that the game is unbalanced and should be fixed?

Sure its great to choose your army and models purely on look and feel, I agree. But wouldn't it be even better if you could do so and STILL be able to compete at an elite level?

I love WoW. It's graphics are great and the co-operative RPG aspects are really fun. I also enjoy the competitive PvP aspects of the game and testing myself and my creation against other players out there trying to beat me. I like both...

Can't we do both?

Jonathan =I=
29-11-2005, 15:29
This all seems to be very strange to me. Over here we have a very limited gaming group (perth is the most isolated city in the world). If someone was to bring a highly tuned list around they would be branded as designing bad lists, and generally no one would want to play them. I've barely seen many high tuners.

Seriously ive never seen more than 1 wraithlord in an army (except in iyanden) over at the tornaments here.:eek: No siren princes. The worst has to be armoured company, but they disappear quite fast when no on wants to play them.

Every list I've seen has something which makes it unique around here.

Im going to the Perth GT in 2 weeks so i might be proved wrong :D
Thats why I love the Perth gaming community. There are no finely tuned to be cheesy lists (except for one person) so the Perth GTs are always great to play in.

See you there.

hairyman
29-11-2005, 16:00
http://ca.games-workshop.com/news/cn/events/GT-2002-CN/coverage/Vancouver/WFB/Dave_Muzia/interview.htm

Check this guy out.:evilgrin:

That's brilliant :D

Eldoriath
30-11-2005, 11:06
I think the supposed dominance of internet-tuned army lists is all in your head.

Here are the armies from the last 4 US Grand Tournaments who won the most battles:

2005 Chicago GT battle winners:
1st. Thousand Sons
2nd & 3rd (tied): Feral Orks & Crimson Fists.

2005 Seattle GT battle winners:
1st. Blood Angels
2nd through 5th (tied): Tyranids, Iron Hands, Mortifactors, Night Lords.

2005 Minneapolis GT battle winners:
1st through 3rd (tied): Wych Cult, Iron Warriors, Tyranids
4th: Tau

2005 Baltimore GT battle winners:
1st: Death Guard
2nd: Ultramarines
3rd: Blood Angels


Am i the only one who think those lists look a little much... Mariny? (is that a word?). I mean, out of 15 armies, 10 of those are some sort of marine army (loyalist or chaos). No wonder people tend to specialize against marines a bit at tourneys. That and the fact that about 40% of all the armies at tourneys are some sort of marine army (loyalist or chaos) wich might help explain these lists. But still, if you look at these lists you might say that marines are cheesy, although i won't say that. I just say that you can.

jigplums
30-11-2005, 16:08
more like 70% of armies at tourneys over here[uk] are mariney

The problem is more people dont diverisify, but stick with what they know ie lots of starcannon lists, marine lists, ironwarrior lists etc... so when people make these lists, with playing these lists in mind they will do reasonablely well. If 50 people turned to to the next uk heat with 150 spinegaunts or 120 orks etc then these lists, with the lascannons and plasmaguns etc... wouldn't do so well. Then next time maybe they would have to balance there armies to face anything.

hood_oz
30-11-2005, 21:08
3. Real players create their armies to perform in a fashion of their liking without reducing their army list to a numbers equation in an attempt to aquire the maximum advantages with the minimal requirements. A real player enjoys the full spectrum of options available to him/her/it in their army lists.

spectrum of options? *hahahahahahahaha* I play thousand sons, if I HAD a spectrum of options, I might be in with a chance. There really isnt much choice in the thousand son list, well at the moment, the next revision is meant to look at that. My SM on the other hand, I limit my choices out of the list to suit my chapter background. Personally, I have seen super bearded cheese monster lists used in games, and they are always getting low points form me for army selection. Hell, I had a power gamer give me low points for army selection due to my army 'not being competitive enough' I dont do tournies much anymore because of the power gaming. Most of them arent fun to play against, or you get the cheating aspect from some gamers who HAVE to win at all cost.

If there was two categories, one for friendly gaming, and one for power gaming, then that would be great. Just push the results for army selection and sportsmanship, and gaming down for friendlies, and push those two down and gaming up for the power gaming sector of the tournie.


Whining in a forum about Wraithlords being "too tough" or the points value of a weapon will NOT make your fairy grandmother appear. She will not wave her magic wand and make everything better fo you. Deal with it.

I played before the marines got their toughness increase to 4. When that happened people complained that they were too tough, and that orks should be the only standard troops with toughness 4.

They TRY and make everything as balanced as they can, but if someone is going to go out and abuse the list, then will.

I just stick to my ground, and know that at least I am keeping to the 'spirit' of the game

I use online lists to help make decisions in picking my support to go against certain armies. (as my thousand sons do happen to lose a LOT) I struggled with the new tyranid stuff with my sons, and am still looking for tactical and list advice. I am not min/maxing, but I find the lists useful to help in my selection. The lists on portent were always a big help to me, and I am sure the warseer ones will help me with the new tau stuff coming...

starlight
30-11-2005, 21:12
If there was two categories, one for friendly gaming, and one for power gaming, then that would be great.
How's this for an idea?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17763

marv335
02-12-2005, 12:56
i was glad to see a crimson fist force up there, hard to powergame when you only have 2 elite, fast attack and heavy support slots in your army

Gonka Koff
02-12-2005, 14:25
Minor tweaks by each player are virtualy un-noticable past the 40 or so Ulthwe Starcannon lists or all the four-ordinance Iron Warriors lists (With Las/plas Troops choices and Obliterators!) or whatever else is big on the net at the time.

I'm not sure this is such a big problem as you propose. I believe that the 'Ulthwe Starcannon lists' is designed with the sole purpose of facing 3+ save armies. And this is a reasonable and clever approach because a majority of armies are of that kind.
I suppose the starcannon list will do good against SM/Chaos, but stink big time against for example IG/Tyranids/Orks. So, as long as this list fights the ememy they are designed to win, they do good, and naturally be a common army.
The problem might not be the "net lists" but the over-abundance of SM/Chaos lists. If the proporton of SM/Chaos were dramatically reduced in tourneys, the starcannon list would not do great, and would quite soon dissapear.

Actually, I'ts clear to me that the 'net' lists is not the 'origin of evil' here. I would rather say that the conformity and lack of diversity of participating armies is allowing this phenomena to actually work.

I think this system is fairly self-balancing, if any particulary good army composition turns up and be abundant, there are usually some poeple who specifically tool up to deal with it next time. So turns the tides.

The good thing about this theory is that the 'net-lists' will never win, because clever opponents already know a counter for it.

Brother Edwin
03-12-2005, 19:50
So every tournament these days includes about 70% of people there with around 3 near identical lists.


Wrong. If you acually went to tornaments you would know.
[quote]People decide on their army then choose a list off the internet that basically has been played by dozens of groups across the world and is reconed to be the most "Competitive" min/maxed beardy list you can make.

Wrong, most lists off the net are crap.


Minor tweaks by each player are virtualy un-noticable past the 40 or so Ulthwe Starcannon lists or all the four-ordinance Iron Warriors lists (With Las/plas Troops choices and Obliterators!) or whatever else is big on the net at the time.

Wrong. Because people dont get lists off the net.



It seems not only is there no sense or fun in these armies but people are going onto the net, collecting these armies and using them in normal play, corrupting the game further than the tournaments.

And how are they getting them off the net? Nobody I know uses lists off the net.


This is something that happens in Magic: The Gathering where the most tuned version of the main deck archetype will usually win any given event.
Wrong. When it faces another powerful deck it will come down to skill.


40k is fast turning into this type of game where a few people develop a list and dozens of jabronis blindly follow by collecting the army from some forum.

Wrong. Because nobody gets lists from forums. And even if they do copy a winners list they will still need skill to use it properly. Plus people will expect to face it so things will be harder for it.


IMO part of the skill of the game is designing an army list, be it all comers or to beat your specific opponent. Not only does this take away a large part of the game but it means theres no variety in the armies we face.

Wrong. Since everyone has different opinuions on what units to take and lists often change to be able to compete against whatever is popular at the moment.


Am I on my own here or does anyone else think its a problem?

Edit: Oops, wrong forum!

There is no problem.

Brother Edwin
03-12-2005, 19:54
I'm not sure this is such a big problem as you propose. I believe that the 'Ulthwe Starcannon lists' is designed with the sole purpose of facing 3+ save armies. And this is a reasonable and clever approach because a majority of armies are of that kind.
I suppose the starcannon list will do good against SM/Chaos, but stink big time against for example IG/Tyranids/Orks. So, as long as this list fights the ememy they are designed to win, they do good, and naturally be a common army.
The problem might not be the "net lists" but the over-abundance of SM/Chaos lists. If the proporton of SM/Chaos were dramatically reduced in tourneys, the starcannon list would not do great, and would quite soon dissapear.

The list does not win becuse of the sarcannons. The lists wins because of its durability, manoverability, the way crewman rules work, cc ability, shooting ability, its effectivness in escalation, its relibility, the ability to take multaple cheap units.
If you could win with just starcannons then people would take war walkers, but they dont.


Actually, I'ts clear to me that the 'net' lists is not the 'origin of evil' here. I would rather say that the conformity and lack of diversity of participating armies is allowing this phenomena to actually work.

Wrong. At places like the UKGT there is a huge virity of armys, not one is exactly the same.


I think this system is fairly self-balancing, if any particulary good army composition turns up and be abundant, there are usually some poeple who specifically tool up to deal with it next time. So turns the tides.

Very true.


The good thing about this theory is that the 'net-lists' will never win, because clever opponents already know a counter for it.

Trust me nodody gets lists off of the net. The get it from observing other players.

Gonka Koff
05-12-2005, 12:55
And how are they getting them off the net? Nobody I know uses lists off the net.

Trust me nodody gets lists off of the net. The get it from observing other players.

And how are they getting them off the net? Nobody I know uses lists off the net.

Well, I know one person who have posted quite a lot of lists on 'the net', and that's you my friend!
;)

Jonathan =I=
05-12-2005, 13:49
O dear God Brother Edwin!

Your Elder list is an Almost exact copy of a UK GT winner
"Wrong. Because people dont get lists off the net." Im so glad somone here can speak for the other 6,446,131,400 people in the world :rolleyes:

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 17:26
Well, I know one person who have posted quite a lot of lists on 'the net', and that's you my friend!
;)
I sure have. And I dont care who copys them because I am confident I can out-play whoever does.

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 17:30
O dear God Brother Edwin!

Your Elder list is an Almost exact copy of a UK GT winner
"Wrong. Because people dont get lists off the net." Im so glad somone here can speak for the other 6,446,131,400 people in the world :rolleyes:

How is my list almost a exact copy? Similar yes, thats because its Ulthwe, but still not identicle. If GW made all units equal maby our lists would be even more different.

People at the UKGT dont copy lists off the net.

Makaber
05-12-2005, 19:47
Wrong. At places like the UKGT there is a huge virity of armys, not one is exactly the same.

A little story. A notoriously unsavory player from Stavanger, Norway (Winner of the second Winter War with a Bretonnia airforce) went to a UKGT heat. His buddy went to another heat. They used the same exactly identical Lizardmen list. They both placed 3rd.

Fallen Angel
05-12-2005, 21:29
i think 70% is a huge overestimate. First off i'll put in a disqualifier and say that i only play in the Uk where there are no marks for composition etc, just soft scores for painting and sportsmanship which most ppl give full marks for cos they don't want to get marked down by the other person or something. Seriously if i can take my pretty average painting skills to a GT and get full marks for painting, something is wrong.

Anyway onto the issue at hand: net lists. I don't think its the problem of posting up lists on the internet especially, its just talking about them in general. We all know what the three armies are that are gauranteed to do well - IW, Ulthwe and Aliatoc. The fact that all of these armies have pretty much the same basis (lots of oblits and some ordnance, big seer council and lots of starcannons, sniperdoom and lots of disruption rolls) isn't the fault of players. For the most part they go to the tournament to do well and play competitive games against other peeps. Its the fact that the way the codexs are written, there are a few options that blatantly stand out from the rest as worthwhile options and those that don't. Some units are just imbalanced and too good for the points you pay for them (queue controversial comments about which units are better lalala).

Its not Brother Edwin's fault that he takes a list maximised to its winning capabilities. He wants to go there and do well. He's a gamer. His lists may come across as copying the person who won last year and changing the list but its more the fact that the particular army (ulthwe in this case) has so much going for it.

Before i start repeating myself too much, the problem for GW is actually balancing the lists out and maybe everything be useful in certain situations rather than certain units being stupidly good for their points.

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 22:35
i think 70% is a huge overestimate. First off i'll put in a disqualifier and say that i only play in the Uk where there are no marks for composition etc, just soft scores for painting and sportsmanship which most ppl give full marks for cos they don't want to get marked down by the other person or something. Seriously if i can take my pretty average painting skills to a GT and get full marks for painting, something is wrong.

Anyway onto the issue at hand: net lists. I don't think its the problem of posting up lists on the internet especially, its just talking about them in general. We all know what the three armies are that are gauranteed to do well - IW, Ulthwe and Aliatoc. The fact that all of these armies have pretty much the same basis (lots of oblits and some ordnance, big seer council and lots of starcannons, sniperdoom and lots of disruption rolls) isn't the fault of players. For the most part they go to the tournament to do well and play competitive games against other peeps. Its the fact that the way the codexs are written, there are a few options that blatantly stand out from the rest as worthwhile options and those that don't. Some units are just imbalanced and too good for the points you pay for them (queue controversial comments about which units are better lalala).

Its not Brother Edwin's fault that he takes a list maximised to its winning capabilities. He wants to go there and do well. He's a gamer. His lists may come across as copying the person who won last year and changing the list but its more the fact that the particular army (ulthwe in this case) has so much going for it.

Before i start repeating myself too much, the problem for GW is actually balancing the lists out and maybe everything be useful in certain situations rather than certain units being stupidly good for their points.


Very true. However I would personelly remove alatoc from that list and add marines, Tau and any chaos army with siren. These armys are powerful its just people have only just started to realise what they need to be takeing to make them good.

Fallen Angel
05-12-2005, 22:52
Yeah tau are another example of some of the choices being great and some being shocking - its usually 3 HHs, min FWs or in 'fishes, load of kroot and then either a butt load of stealths or crisis suits. Hopefully their new codex will make some other stuff seem interesting. I looked at doing a tau army but realised that i'd end up using the same list as everyone else and two of my gaming group use it as well so decided to go with Saim Hann Eldar instead.

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 22:59
Yeah tau are another example of some of the choices being great and some being shocking - its usually 3 HHs, min FWs or in 'fishes, load of kroot and then either a butt load of stealths or crisis suits. Hopefully their new codex will make some other stuff seem interesting. I looked at doing a tau army but realised that i'd end up using the same list as everyone else and two of my gaming group use it as well so decided to go with Saim Hann Eldar instead.

Personelly I think they should remove the jump back rule butmake them less points. ATM it means some armys have no way of beating them whatsoever where armys like IW with indirect-fire destroy them wit little the tau player can do.

Spookeh
06-12-2005, 07:52
netlist i dont think is a problem, it just means people can come to the end conclusion of finding what is actually the strongest lists a lot faster than if they do the work themselves.
i did the work myself with tau, i refined my list over like a year and tried all kinds of options, but i ended up with the hammerheads/stealths list that fallen angel has played against (and now with) so much :P

i dont blame people who copy off the net, you still generally need some grasp of the rules to make it work. it just seems a little pathetic that they've not put in the effort themselves, as then the army/player/battle has no personality at all. edwin being a good example of that.

Spookeh
06-12-2005, 07:58
with jetpacks you do suffer immensly against indirect fire... but then thats why you gotta make sure you kill the threats to your stealths as your priority.

(escalation helps you here, can't fire barrage on the move so that spares you a turn)

often there isn't enough terrain to actually completely hide much (or any) indirect from your 3 railheads

so you may have to sit the suits in terrain and hope for the cover save.
problem is, this means either:
1- walking into cover during the movement, shooting, and then not moving in assault phase which opens you up to direct return fire and reduces your mobility by half,
2- or you can jump into terrain in the assault move and risk the dangerous terrain checks.

(dangerous checks are harsh on stealths, not so bad on crisis, and can almost be ignored on HQ crisis)

and also deepstriking plasma (drop troop guard, drop pods etc)


but yea, the general point is valid that static armies will get dicked by jetpacks and ones that can shoot you regardless of your manvouvering will dick you. but then, thats why no one plays fully static armies.

Spookeh
06-12-2005, 10:30
oh also the indirect min range cap can be exploited too with suits.

generally, i dont find indirect to be utterly crippling, as people dont really take loads of it. its a pain but you can work around it, you just have to kill it as a priority.

at UKGT heat 2 i faced IW with 2 indirect defilers, and didnt lose any suits to them at all, they came on after my railheads, didnt hide to fire indirect, he fired direct at my HH, then i punkd them...

the things that ruin suits more are ones you can't manouver against, like drop pods and drop troops.
then you just have to hide in terrain, or perhaps buffer the space around them with kroot / skimmers which really locks you down.

Brother Edwin
06-12-2005, 13:50
netlist i dont think is a problem, it just means people can come to the end conclusion of finding what is actually the strongest lists a lot faster than if they do the work themselves.
i did the work myself with tau, i refined my list over like a year and tried all kinds of options, but i ended up with the hammerheads/stealths list that fallen angel has played against (and now with) so much :P

i dont blame people who copy off the net, you still generally need some grasp of the rules to make it work. it just seems a little pathetic that they've not put in the effort themselves, as then the army/player/battle has no personality at all. edwin being a good example of that.

Wrong. The ulthwe list is so perfect there is not much you can change without makeing it weaker. Plus my army was almost the same as Simones before I even saw his army. I just used to use mind war but saw in his list he didant use it and he did better.

Kahadras
06-12-2005, 18:09
Well Eddie told me he just copied the list that he used at GT (with a tweak or two) from a previous GT winner. I wonder how much though went into that army? As far as I am concerned net.lists aren't really a problem. People aways copy other's lists (remember that immitation is the sincerest form of flattery) all you have to do is go inot the local GW store on a Thursday to see that. The Internet has just sped up the process so I don't see any real need to be concerned.

Kahadras

Brother Edwin
06-12-2005, 21:55
Well Eddie told me he just copied the list that he used at GT (with a tweak or two) from a previous GT winner. I wonder how much though went into that army? As far as I am concerned net.lists aren't really a problem. People aways copy other's lists (remember that immitation is the sincerest form of flattery) all you have to do is go inot the local GW store on a Thursday to see that. The Internet has just sped up the process so I don't see any real need to be concerned.

Kahadras

Wrong.

My list before seeing his:

Seer council.(small, balanced)
Avatar.
6 guardian squads.
3 vypers
3 wrathlords

His list.

seer council(big, all out cc)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 vyper
3 wrathlords

My list now after seeing his and playing in the UKGT.

Seer council(big, all out CC)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 storm squad
2 wrathlords
1 falcon

Well it looks like you lose. If anything my list became less like his after seeing his army. All he did was suggest the idea of a seer council as a all out CC unit rather than a bit of everything unit.

Kahadras
06-12-2005, 22:24
Thing I want to know then, is why you inform people that you just 'copied' a list when they call it into question for its ability to win (it has won at GT before so it has to be good) then strenuously deny it elsewhere. Running round posting WRONG!!!!! after every post I make it doesn't make it any less the truth.

Kahadras

Jonathan =I=
07-12-2005, 06:26
Edwin before you start lying you had better make sure that you havenít posted anything that could contradict your statements.

This is the list you took to the most recent GT

18 man seer council, 10 have wich blades, 2 fortunes, embolden, enhance
avatar
5 squads of 7 guardians with starcannon
2 vypers with starcannon
3 wrathlords with brightlance

And this is the list of a previous GT winner

seer council(big, all out cc)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 vyper
3 wrathlords

The differences are 1 vyper :eyebrows:


http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16541
And this is what you posted right after that tournament

The winner was a army identical to mine but with a falcon

And this is what you changed your list to

Seer council(big, all out CC)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 storm squad
2 wrathlords
1 falcon

So after seeing the GT winners list was almost exactly the same as yours you then added a Falcon with a Storm squad to go in it! :rolleyes:

Well Edwin it indeed looks like you lose.
Try and get out of this one :evilgrin:

(high fives Kahadras)

DarkstarSabre
07-12-2005, 09:01
And how are they getting them off the net? Nobody I know uses lists off the net.



Wrong. Because nobody gets lists from forums. And even if they do copy a winners list they will still need skill to use it properly. Plus people will expect to face it so things will be harder for it.



.

Except you, eh Eddie? Mr. Carbon Copy? Mr. I will change my Eldar list to be identical to the winning Eldar List? Mr. I copied the Winners List, still did not win? Mr. This army is unbeatable but I won't take it because I have more unbeatable armies?

Brother Edwin
07-12-2005, 10:20
Thing I want to know then, is why you inform people that you just 'copied' a list when they call it into question for its ability to win (it has won at GT before so it has to be good) then strenuously deny it elsewhere. Running round posting WRONG!!!!! after every post I make it doesn't make it any less the truth.

Kahadras

Because I did not copy the list, it just happens to be the similar. In terms of how it works it is effective for the same reasons.

Brother Edwin
07-12-2005, 10:28
Edwin before you start lying you had better make sure that you havenít posted anything that could contradict your statements.

This is the list you took to the most recent GT

18 man seer council, 10 have wich blades, 2 fortunes, embolden, enhance
avatar
5 squads of 7 guardians with starcannon
2 vypers with starcannon
3 wrathlords with brightlance

And this is the list of a previous GT winner

seer council(big, all out cc)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 vyper
3 wrathlords

The differences are 1 vyper :eyebrows:


Wrong. He had different weapon setups on his units, his seer council had different equipment and he had only one vyper.


http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16541
And this is what you posted right after that tournament


And this is what you changed your list to

Seer council(big, all out CC)
avatar
5 guardian squads
1 storm squad
2 wrathlords
1 falcon

So after seeing the GT winners list was almost exactly the same as yours you then added a Falcon with a Storm squad to go in it! :rolleyes:

Correct. I saw a falcon was effective so decided to add one to my own list. Whats your point? Or should people keep the same list for ever and never imporve?


Well Edwin it indeed looks like you lose.
Try and get out of this one :evilgrin:

(touches Kahadras intimatly)

Get out of what? My lists are similar yet not the same. As I have always claimed.

Spookeh
07-12-2005, 11:32
Wrong.
such minor details do not make a 'different army'. its the same. you copied.
the important things about a list is the ideas, princples, and unit choices that make it work, not small adjustments to wargear.

i like also at the bottom of page 5 you neglet to mention the actual important stage in your army which was what you took to the GT, and its so similar to the previous winner dude.

btw if the list is so perfect, and he won and you didn't, what does that say about you?
i know you're probably not arrogant to think you're as good as him, but i notice you are quite keen on talking about what a pro you are sometimes. maybe it is just all in the list for you :(

also, you claim your list before you saw his was pretty good, but that was probably just other weaker lists you'd copied from elsewhere... :P

Gonka Koff
07-12-2005, 12:05
(touches Kahadras intimatly)

hehe, you deserved it :D

Actually, I can't understand why you guys are making all these efforts :wtf:
Chill and consider who looks the most like an ass in this discussion.

I fully admit that BE can be arrogant and that his un-asked for comments about his own splendour makes you wonder sometimes. Well, I'm no expert player, and I believe he'd beat me anytime, so my toes are not the ones getting stepped upon. You guys, obviously have sensitive toes, and can't stand having BE around speaking the way he do.
Fair enough, I believe that your self-image do not cope with having Mr Edwin among 'your ranks'. You are continously trying to make us (or yourself) believe that Edwins success relies on cheese and copying other peoples lists.
Face it, thats bulls-t.

You are actually complaing that people brings powerful lists to tournaments:wtf:
For Gods sake, how about arranging your own tournament instead, where you forbids whatever stuff you regard as 'cheese/min-maxed/exploited/unbalanced' for the moment? (which, would be what BE is using for the moment I guess...). And then you could scrutinize all paricipants lists and ban everything that looks to have been chosen for the purpose of effectiveness.

From the lists about top placings I've seen around here, I can find NO proof whatsoever that there is any thruth in your reasoning.

If you want to win, go home and train. Maybe you'll end up so damn good you can actually beat 'cheese' with 'fluff' some day, if that is what you really want to achieve.

Good Luck!

/Gonka

PS I am a bit ashamed loosing my cool like this, I normally try to let people mind their own business. This time, I lost temper beacuse I have seen you guys go after BE on numerous occasions, and I can't stand to see the poor guy take this amount of crap from jerks without anyone standing up for him DS

Brother Edwin
07-12-2005, 16:18
Wrong.
such minor details do not make a 'different army'. its the same. you copied.
the important things about a list is the ideas, princples, and unit choices that make it work, not small adjustments to wargear.

In that case I didant copy it seeing as my list was similar before I even saw his.


i like also at the bottom of page 5 you neglet to mention the actual important stage in your army which was what you took to the GT, and its so similar to the previous winner dude.

Correct, yet not a exact copy as people claimed.


btw if the list is so perfect, and he won and you didn't, what does that say about you?

It says I am a exceptional player but he is better. There were countless other people with "similar" lists who were nowhere near me.

i know you're probably not arrogant to think you're as good as him, but i notice you are quite keen on talking about what a pro you are sometimes. maybe it is just all in the list for you :(

BTW are we talking about Simone(won the UKGT final) or Max Barton(won the recent heat)? It is blatently not all in the list, if it was there wouldant be such a mix of armys all about the tables. But you need a decent army to do well.


also, you claim your list before you saw his was pretty good, but that was probably just other weaker lists you'd copied from elsewhere... :P

So by your definition EVERY person with a eldar army has copyd it because Gav Thorp was the first person to make a eldar army(he wrote the book).

I win and you lose.

Brother Edwin
07-12-2005, 16:32
Cheers Gonka Koff.

I admit I am arrogant at sometimes but that is only because of frustration at certan members.

However I have one question to Karandras/Jonathan/any others:

Why is it that you claim my army to be so overpowerd and cheesy yet when someone asks for there Ulthwe to be made more effective in the army list section you tell them they will win more if they take a smaller seer council, take aspect warriors, take bigger squads of guardians, take less wrathlords and more falcons, take scatter lazers insted of starcannons. Also when I origionally posted it you said it would be massacred by certan armys and generally not do so well. If there is so much room for improvement in my list then surely I was a mastermind to do so well?

Also to Kharandras why was it we agred before I went that if I came in the top 10 for generalship you would admit my army was good and that I had done well, and if I didant then I would admit I wasnt as good as I said I was. Yet when I come 7th you were "its OK but not that great".

Kahadras
07-12-2005, 16:34
Ewwww. Eddie's went to all that trouble to make Johnathan look gay (says more about Eddie than Johnathan I feel). Lets face it guys Eddie makes up his own truth as he goes along. We say his list will never win. Well it must be good because he copied it from the guy who won last years GT. He copies list. No he doesn't because he swapt a couple of things round; that makes them like two totaly different armies right? So depending on the day Eddie does/doesn't copy lists. But what do we know? Eddie builds the best lists ever! He also wins all of his games, came 7th no wait 13th no wait 15th in this years GT and even regularly beats his own lists with other peoples lists! Any post which anybody makes is answered with either...

A. Wrong!

or

B. Not if you play properly!

Kahadras.

PS I do belive It was top ten overall not with just generalship (this was revised down from top five by Eddie who had second thoughts about his 'unbeatable' list actualy being unbeatable). So basicaly he failed, then tried to move the goal posts. Kinda like what he is doing here too. My my my ain't that odd? With his failure I thought I would just let the matter drop rather than run around the boards throwing it in his face everytime he argued with me but there you go.

Fallen Angel
07-12-2005, 16:37
This time, I lost temper beacuse I have seen you guys go after BE on numerous occasions, and I can't stand to see the poor guy take this amount of crap from jerks without anyone standing up for him DS[/I]

im trying to defend him as well but no one seems to care.

Look everyone, Brother Edwin likes to take a list that wins and is very powerful. Just because he 'copies' a list to a very close approximation of one someone won a GT with, who cares. Its his life and he's free to do what he wants with it and i don't see it anywhere on this forum that he can post anything he wants 40k related. The whole premise of this thread is leading to people not liking peeps copying other peeps. Right so the next person i see with an autocannon tank hunter squad is copying me and i can lambast them for not having any imagination and copying me. Gotcha. I often wonder if you peeps having anything better to do than play find the nearest powergamer and if he posts anything that sounds cocky, argue with him until the cows come home. Here's a little known fact, you don't have to reply if you don't like what he's saying.

[/rant mode off]

Brother Edwin
07-12-2005, 17:17
Ewwww. Eddie's went to all that trouble to make Johnathan look gay (says more about Eddie than Johnathan I feel). Lets face it guys Eddie makes up his own truth as he goes along. We say his list will never win. Well it must be good because he copied it from the guy who won last years GT. He copies list.
We have already established my list was similar before I even knew a guy called Simmone Di Tomasso existed.


Eddie builds the best lists ever!

Maby. Thats your opinuion.


He also wins all of his games,
Wrong, in the last yer I have lost once to the guy who came 2nd with Tau and at the GT I got a draw against the eldar waveserpant army(who you said would massacre me), I also got a draw against my mates orks in a friendly game.

came 7th no wait 13th no wait 15th in this years GT
I came 7th for generalship and 15th overall. Meaning I play better than I paint/answer fluff questions.


and even regularly beats his own lists with other peoples lists! Correct.
Any post which anybody makes is answered with either...

A. Wrong!

Correct, and then I will then give reasons to back it up.


or

B. Not if you play properly!

If someone make a sweeping statement like "nids will beat ulthwe".



PS I do belive It was top ten overall not with just generalship (this was revised down from top five by Eddie who had second thoughts about his 'unbeatable' list actualy being unbeatable).
Wrong. I specificaly said generalship, I was putting my playing to the test not my painting. And no I did not say I would come top 5. You might be confuseing it with me saying my friends with tau and marines would come top 5(o wait they did).

So basicaly he failed, then tried to move the goal posts. Kinda like what he is doing here too.
Wrong. I succeded in what I aimd to do and now you are "moveing the goal posts" rather than admiting I did extremly well in a tornament with a list you yourself said would not do well.

My my my ain't that odd? With his failure I thought I would just let the matter drop rather than run around the boards throwing it in his face everytime he argued with me but there you go.

What failure? You simply make things up because I beat you in our little challenge. Even if I had said top 5 or even 1st I did extremly well with 7th, better than my 21st last time, I met new people and had 6 fun and challenging games, in what way is that a failure? Plus if my last game had not continued another turn I would of came 4th, not that it really matters.

Wintermute
07-12-2005, 17:42
Can we stop the bickering and get this thread back on topic?

Now!

Wintermute

Gonka Koff
07-12-2005, 17:51
Sorry Kahandras, I am not finished. I have one more thing to say about this:


I do belive It was top ten overall not with just generalship


You guys have been arguing one thing, and one thing only: generalship. He came 7th on generalship.
Come on, Kahandras!

This has to be the lowest of the low.

/Gonka

PS I do not know for sure if you have challenged Kahandras in a game, Edwin, but if you have, please be warned. I fear this guy lack some fundamental knowledge about sportsmanship. ;) DS

Great Harlequin
07-12-2005, 18:04
My, my.

This is all getting a little out of hand. I wish everyone would stop bitching about Tournament gaming and copying lists. It really is getting petty, and frankly it ruins the WarSeer experience seeing threads corrupted like this. To be blunt it's selfish.

I really don't mind Brother Edwin's list being similar to the latest GT winner. It isn't a problem. It's his choice. He still has to put in the effort to pay, build and paint the army. Which is no mean feat. In fact you should stop looking at 'carbon copy lists' so negatively, try and pull something out of people taking similar lists. If they become a popular choice at a tournament then I suggest you find a way of beating that type of force. It is possible, quite possible in fact.

Kahadras, if you're so eager to flame on about Brother Edwin, please, do it elsewhere.

DarkstarSabre
07-12-2005, 18:07
Sorry Kahandras, I am not finished. I have one more thing to say about this:




You guys have been arguing one thing, and one thing only: generalship. He came 7th on generalship.
Come on, Kahandras!

This has to be the lowest of the low.

/Gonka

PS I do not know for sure if you have challenged Kahandras in a game, Edwin, but if you have, please be warned. I fear this guy lack some fundamental knowledge about sportsmanship. ;) DS

Actually, you'll find Kahadras to be a very sporting and fair opponent, willing to face any opponent without bitching, cheesefesting or designing a list specifically to beat them.

And Generalship was not the sole thing they argued for. I believe the challenge was for Edwin's overall position to be in the top ten, including the painting, background, sportsmanship, generalship and other scores.

Overall Edwin came 15th. Let's make this clear. 15th.

And fundamental knowledge about sportsmanship? Simple- don't be an ass. Certain lists I have seen taken to GT are lists where you just know your opponent sits on the other side of the table and grins smugly as the game of scissors vs. paper goes the way to scissors.

That is not sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship is facing such an army whilst having a good old laugh. When I went along to the Portent tournament a year or so (perhaps longer) back I had a good few games against pretty sporting opponents. Cloud Runner was one of them where we simply had fun and didn't care who won.

I believe Zark was a prime example of sportsmanship then. He showed up with a themed IG army that was not designed to be uber or powerful. It was themed. IG with cc weapons but not hardened fighters?

And he faced Brimstone's 'nids and had a very good time of it despite getting slaughtered. His army was converted well, themed, he had good background knowledge and went into games he knew he wouldn't win quite happily.

Originality gets a lot more respect then a carbon copy cheese-list.

There's designing an army and designing a walking talking rules exploit.

Pick the one you'd rather face.

I'll give you a hint- it has one wraithlord, not 3, does not min-max and includes both good and bad units because they either look cool or fit the background. Not because they are the best value for points.

Wintermute
07-12-2005, 18:36
Thread closed