View Full Version : Do you like to use a strong army list?

16-02-2009, 18:56
I had a friendly discussion with my friend yesterday and he said that the majority of players liked to use a strong army list and you probably lost if you didn't do it. Is there any difference between a strong army list and 'cheesy' one? From my understanding, a strong army list doesn't necessary mean that it's a cheesy army list.

Do you like to use a strong army list? Please vote and thank you for participating.

16-02-2009, 19:52
I said yes, because I try to design armies that can achieve victory, and which contain units that work well together. However, I don't go out of my way to design lists meant to pummel my opponent into the ground, nor do I try to base an army around combos that people might call "cheesy."

This may or may not fit your definition of "strong," but I certainly don't throw together a list with completely random units and no strategy in mind.

16-02-2009, 19:56
I said yes, because I try to design armies that can achieve victory, and which contain units that work well together. However, I don't go out of my way to design lists meant to pummel my opponent into the ground, nor do I try to base an army around combos that people might call "cheesy."

This may or may not fit your definition of "strong," but I certainly don't throw together a list with completely random units and no strategy in mind.

I fully understand what you are saying and i'm doing the same thing.

16-02-2009, 19:59

I don't think I'd be happy playing with a list I hadn't out effort into making as good as it could be.

I tend to theme my lists though rather than spam units or rules.

16-02-2009, 20:07
I haven't answered either, as it depends on the situation.

If they are a good player, or its a tournament, then I tend to use a good list (either my Dark Eldar or Orks).

But if they are a new player, a new member or someone who just isn't very good, then I will play with my Guard or Space Marines (who are crap).

The point is that I give them the game they want, rather than just trying to win.

16-02-2009, 20:16
I don't think there is any such thing as cheese, except for outright obvious manipulations of the rules. Taking lots of the best unit choices is NOT cheese, its brains. There are reasons to not make "good" armies if you are doing a fluff army or something but for the most part everyone will want to play a strong army.

16-02-2009, 20:16
I make fairly strong armies, but I don't go so far as to abuse power builds. My armies are as strong as I can make them while keeping them fluffy and fun to use.

16-02-2009, 20:22
Some people are confused about it. When they see a strong army list, they automatically label it as a 'cheesy' list.

How can you separate a strong and cheese army list?

16-02-2009, 20:42
It's not about taking sub par options it's about the theme of your army.

I've recently seen far too many Double lash/oblit spam lists, there's nothing original about it, nothing interesting, it's just dull.

Make your list interesting, mix it up a bit, take some unusual choices but above all don't be boring.

16-02-2009, 21:06
With my nids, I always take the mixed horde. I don't really like the idea of nidzilla, and I only take a stealer army for campaigns i.e. the initial assault.
Since I play word bearers, I have to follow the fluff of utilising daemons. I try therefore to maximise their strengths to offset their weaknesses.

Khornies & milk
16-02-2009, 21:19
Personally, I can only field strong lists, as I play pure GK, pure DH, and DW. If anyone thinks they can be cheesed out they need their heads read. Plus every list I have ever played against is an MEQ one so I need to take resilient units to survive.

There isn't one gamer in our Group who plays so-called cheesy lists, so I have never come up against any.

The closest we get to cheesy is in Apoc, and even then they're more themed than cheesy, like my Armoured Battlegroup list for example.

16-02-2009, 21:24
the list is the first part as it completely changes the game. you canuse the same tactic with different units but in the end the list is what defines your army

16-02-2009, 22:00
Any list in the hands of a good player is strong - the actual contents of the list (outside of deliberatly stupid ones) is pretty much meaningless.

Hell I know a player who uses BA far, far more effectively than what normal SM are capable of - even with the huge difference in cost.

16-02-2009, 22:03
I build a list with a specific theme in mind, and only take models that fit that theme.

Then I see how it plays, see what the weaknesses are, and see what I can take in order to "overcome" the weaknesses without breaking the theme too much (ie, I may take a Punisher when the new Guard codex is released, but my Guard Armour is based on WW2 German armour and no vehicle akin to the Punisher existed then - closest I can find is some sort of Chinese AA tank - so I'd have to break theme to include one. Also, my tanks have Lascannons as standard hull armament, no sponsons and a pintle weapon. You'd be hard pressed to find a WW2-era tank on either side with a Lascannon in the front, but it is the "standard" armament of the 40K russ and so fits the theme in *that* way, even if not directly).

Often, I don't take stuff because it's powerful, I take stuff that looks (in my opinion) "cool" - for example, I don't take Vulkan in my Salamanders army list because I prefer the imagery of a commander with 2x Thunder Hammers (since I've modelled them like Blacksmith's Hammers too) over all the effectiveness Vulkan could bring to the force.

This means I have armies that are fun, are converted and people enjoy playing against. They may not use the best combinations possible (ie, very few Lascannon/Plasma in my Guard) but they are still powerful lists, since I've learnt/am learning to use the units I have in a way that complements my strategy (since usually it's the strategy I think of first). They might loose in a tournament, but I'd really like to give one a shot with my "fluffy" armies just to see if I can out-play a decent player with a truly "hard/cheesey" list.

Basically, what The_Outsider said - though I think armies can still be "strong" even with "stupid" choices - after all, if the player knows it's a sub-par unit they are going to have some way to make up for it/use the sub-par unit in a way beneficial to them.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
16-02-2009, 22:08
I voted 'no'.

I'd rather take good looking unit than strong one.

Yes, i use often Chaos Dreadnoughts and Chaos Lords with Daemon Weapons backed by 10 man strong CSM squads.

I loathe peoples who take most uber list for teh win.

16-02-2009, 22:51
I think 40K rewards players who design a strong list designed to operate to a specific battle plan. Personally this bores me so I design my lists slightly differently. My key consideration is flexibility. I like to have a mobile force with as many bases covered (ie anti-heavy infantry, anti tank, CC etc) as possible, with out any strong bias in any direction. Also I favour units that can perform multiple roles over specialists. For me the enjoyment from the actual game comes from the in-game decision making rather than the pre-game list making or the post-game result. Taking balanced and flexible lists serves me well in this regard, if perhaps putting me at a slight disadvantage.

16-02-2009, 23:20
I voted yes, but my frequent use of Repentia would seem to indicate otherwise.

16-02-2009, 23:20
There is a distinction, I play with strong lists. Lists that can win, however cheesy and strong are diffrent. I play the lists in a fluffy way, with a good mind to effective options. Though I'll also get people to make me up army lists on the models and options I have and not know till I get ready to deploy.

I love playing those games, really puts an impact on the "on the board" decisions. People should try that sometime.

16-02-2009, 23:25
I said no... too be interested in an army I need to make it fluffy and unique. I tried the ballanced thing and I owned every army at one point or another. So isntead of throwing my money out the door and in order for me to have fun, I play with forces that are very risky. some might cry cheese but these lists are not umbeatable.

16-02-2009, 23:34
I think for one thing every unit has a purpose, tho some might not work as well as others, I think so long as you have a plan for all of your units you have a strong list. For example I play chaos, I have no oblits, no psychic powers. I know they are both good, but for one, I dont like messing with building metal models, and oblits look like a huge pain. I use a mostly cc army, with my only shooting models are usually my defiler(until someone is close enough to be charged with it XD), and my landraider(after it drops off the termies). Its not a list you would typically see people saying to use, but so far ive won all my league games with it, so I think its more about how you plan your battles, coupled of course with some luck that makes a list strong.

17-02-2009, 00:07
I don't over pack my lists with the stronger units, but I do like to use them combined with the other elements of the army. I like playing with a strong, yet well balanced army list so I can have a good chance of winning whoever I play. It isn't very fun getting stomped 3 out of 4 games.

17-02-2009, 00:13
I put No. But for Ravenguard i use shrike with vangaurd shrikes wing, there expensive and powerful but fluffy. I basically play 4th edition ravenguard. and for the IG i dont spam veterans or plasma special weapon squads.i prefer to play a well balanced list, some troops and some tanks with some support units.

17-02-2009, 00:30
There is a difference between a strong list and a cheesy list.
for example tonight in a 1000pt game I took a deathskulls ork army
I had 10 lootas, 10 burnas, a big mek with a KFF, a warboss, 40 boys, a looted wagon, and a skorcha trakk.
I don't think it was particularly cheesy, it was heavily themed, but I hammered my SM opponent 6-1 in a KP mission.
A strong list is one that plays to an armies strengths.

17-02-2009, 01:53
Honestly, I don't believe in such a thing as a "cheesy list". If it can be defeated through means other then blind luck, then it's not cheesy.

From my experience, it's mostly just losers (as in, the ones who lost the battle) that whine about "cheesy lists". I for one never had this problem. When an opponent shows me his list, I think on how to best defeat it rather then whether it's cheesy or not. If I keep losing to a list, it only inspires me to fight against it until I can beat it at least 50% of the time - and I always do, eventually. Nothing in 40k is unbeatable.

As for fluff... it really has nothing to do with how the game actually plays on the table. I mean, if we're to believe the fluff a tyranid player should have 50 gaunts for each tactical marine, and an army of 50 marines should never ever be defeated by an army of 100 guardsmen, etc. You can make fluffy lists all you want, but in the end they don't translate well into what happens on the table.

17-02-2009, 02:57
I try my best to come up with strong lists, except when using my GKs. I don't really see the fun behind getting slaughtered otherwise.

17-02-2009, 07:12
I go for a balance of fluff and power There are some armies I'd never play (Eldar, SoB or Tau) no matter how strong they were.

If a number of armies are competitive, I go with the one that has the most appealing fluff to me.

problems arise, however, when the most effective builds are somewhat un-fluffy =\

17-02-2009, 10:24
I said 'no' only because I don't choose my army to be strong. I take the units I like for fluff and attack in theme. Sometimes in turns out strong sometimes not.Having said that maybe the units I like, I like because they are strong? Hmmm. No. I love my warp spiders and they never earn their points back. Love 'em though.

17-02-2009, 10:55
The biggest issue i have is that i love theme.

If an army can both be effective(strong) and follow a theme or fluff then both the player and the game designers did the job right.

The old iron warriors armies were an example of a fluff army that was very powerful, a close combat heavy sisters of battle army is at the other end of the spectrum. very themed, but very innefective.

17-02-2009, 11:49
I voted No as I don't really care if I win or not and I'm just as likely to use a prepared list as I am to turn up with a 'Box o' Stuff' (C) and throw together a few units and go at it that way. Winning is nice and everything but fun is the reason I'm here and I'm just as likely to achieve that with a sub-par list as I am with a tailored one.

Also the fact that I lose more than I win should not be seen as a motivating factor for my previous statements. :p

17-02-2009, 12:14
I won't take all the most powerful units intsead i like to use models i like based around a theme I like, my bugs. I like a mix of a list being competitive and winnable with, combined with themed and then its perfect in my eyes.

17-02-2009, 12:24
I have 20 Wraithguard in my 1,500 point list. That pretty much speaks for it self, I guess. :p

Vote Kantor
17-02-2009, 12:27
I dont powegame, i make a powerful(ish) list for budget all roundedness, it does the job.

17-02-2009, 12:52
I base my army mainly on models I really like or conversion ideas I have. Then I try to make the best of it, so in a way I make a strong list it's just not the top priority.

17-02-2009, 12:54
I don't powergame, but I don't take units that I just 'don't get' either. Since 5th edition has come out, I've stopped upgrading my rangers to pathfinders and my falcon & swooping hawks have not left the shelf. There is no real point in taking certain units when they don't really do 'anything'.

Playing is fun, but when you are playing at equal points and you stand no chance of winning because you didn't plan out your list properly, but your opponent did, its not really fun. I'm not a WAAC player, but I do have a reputation to keep in my gaming group. ;)

17-02-2009, 12:58
Voted 'Yes' not because I will try to combine 3 special rules to make an uber-unit, but because I believe that a balanced list well used is stronger than a one dimensional power list.

I've got a couple of units (Hawks, Shining Spears) that are considered to be over costed or nerfed in 5th Ed, but I still love 'em and will try to find a use for them. Maybe I should've voted 'no'....

Captain Micha
17-02-2009, 13:09
This question is kinda preanswered isn't it?

I would love to use a strong army list.

The problem really lies in the fact that, not all army lists are strong. (not even within the same codex!)