View Full Version : 'Nemesis' armies??????

04-05-2005, 23:52
I suppose we have all read the latest White Dwarf (305) and have seen Peter Haines sugestions on fielding 'Nemesis armies' is it just me or does this smell of min maxing and if it does then does this constitute as power gaming? Or is it unfair to decry them as Power gaming armies as he puts it. The whole idea behind a 'nemesis' army is to give a well rounded army a problem which is nearly impossible to counter and yet he then goes on to give the impression later that balanced armies are somehow better (being able to evolve)...... (read into a 'nemesis' army). I don't normaly complain against stuff like this but min maxed laz plas squads (something which should be avoided at all cost) is now being openly promoted by Peter as a good thing. I feel this marks a growing trend in GW away from the more enjoyable side of gaming and more towards the competitive tournament play. While some may see this as a good thing I still feel slightly disappointed that Peter is not extoling the virtues of a well rounded force and how to fit a terminator squad or two into them. Is it just me or are other people starting to get a bit tired of this too? It seems like 40K is becoming more and more like Magic The Gathering.... can my uber L33t combo beat your uber L33t combo?; with the same type of armies being churned out for the same races because everybody knows that it will win. A good example of this is at my local GW were five people field virtualy the same Chaos army (basicaly a deamon bomb but with nasty extras)
Maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age but I thought that the enjoyment was ment to come from playing the game not winning all the time.


Delicious Soy
04-05-2005, 23:58
Yeah 'nemesis' is pretty much a euphemism for 'beardy irritating armies which get slammed as annoying on every GW forum known to man'

05-05-2005, 00:05
I agree with your observations in wide parts - I got a bit worried upon reading as well...

I think it has to do with the focus being shifted to a younger audience, what is it - 12, 14 these days? Young players more often play to win, and not for a more "abstract" storytelling concept.

Gladly one can still choose whom to play and who not, and collect a group that plays the own style. Or jump into the breach and teach the younger crowd the joys of playing along a storyline...

On the other hand I could just be seriously biased :p

05-05-2005, 00:56
Yeah, its a bit of a worry. Although it does raise a good point in the article that 'nemesis' armies can get spanked by armies they don't expect to fight. A plasma/marine army is all well and good, but it does have weaknesses when fighting orks/nids/some eldar etc. The thing is you waste loads of bolters firing the lascannons, and plasmaguns, you can't move to take objectives as easily etc. Anyway, yeah, those army lists **** me, in tourneys they suffer from bad marks, at my GW they get payed out as being lame, so at least here, they aren't a big problem. Usually i play people i konw, or people i've seen play before, so i get an idea of who i would like to play.

05-05-2005, 03:39
Haven't read the new Dwarf yet, but Haines' stuff always made me wonder. When I started reading WD, it had articles by people like Jervis Johnson, Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley, guys that made the games and knew what they were intended to be. From what I know, Pete Haines started out as a gamer and still has a gamer's view on the rules, where the rules are more of an obstacle to be defeated or at best a tool to be used to achieve victory. I get the same kind of vibe (if less blatantly) from some of the other newer designers and WD crew.

Maybe it's a good thing that WD discusses the dirty tricks of the game, that ought to help beginners, who the mag is primarily aimed at. If you just show balanced armies and talk about fluffy army composition, newbies are going to be in for a surprise when they show up at a forum, a gaming club or a tournament. But actively promoting the use of such tricks isn't good of course, because if winning is your primary concern in gaming, you're not properly enjoying all the other aspects (which you're paying a lot for).

05-05-2005, 04:24
Pete Haines...

my favorite quote from Pete? Cheese doesn't exist. If it wasn't meant to be done, it wouldn't be allowed.

I think that's enough to get a general feel for his thoughts on the game.

05-05-2005, 04:35
I dont think cheese exists either there is always a way around something and people who use cheese are usually bad players and generals so they are easily outsmarted

05-05-2005, 05:52
This Nemesis lists disappoint me. I would love to see an end to power-gaming and let the story of the battle reign supreme but if new players are introduced to power lists as the answer to gaming, they will tread that path and we will see its' effects. Oh dear. 2 monoliths, resurrection orb, nightbringer, and veil of darkness?? Ah well my Prison-World Guard can almost... well, umm...


05-05-2005, 06:02
Pete Haines...

my favorite quote from Pete? Cheese doesn't exist. If it wasn't meant to be done, it wouldn't be allowed.

I think that's enough to get a general feel for his thoughts on the game.

Yeah, the game designers don't make mistakes and their Vision is supreme... it's like George Lucas, you can't complain because you can't appreciate their genius, Greedo shooting first made everything better. Not a very endearing attitude.

05-05-2005, 06:07
While the 'Nemesis Army' article in White Dwarf disgusts me, it doesn't surprise me. Seriously guys, Pete Haines' views in the article shouldn't come as shock to anyone. He IS the a**hole who came up with the Iron Warriors list after all. Christ I miss Andy Chambers. I may have to start playing Starship Troopers.

Good move, Andy. Going somewhere where you talents are appreciated.

05-05-2005, 06:48
Wait a second... Haines wrote the Iron Warriors list!?

And then he's got the guts to say that it's not cheese if the rules allow it?

Dear god emperor, what a mangina.

Delicious Soy
05-05-2005, 10:32
Thing is, you flick through old WD's you see guys who played the game very differently, the kind of sit around the garage for an afternoon, kidding around with a wargame. Personally, I think wargaming is much more suited to the sort of laid back approach instead of obessessing over details. But I guess geeks today need the same thing as everyone else, a large dose of apathy.

05-05-2005, 11:48
I have no problem playing against power gamers, If I know I'm playing a power gamer then I beef my list up to a stupidly high level to lay the smack down on him

like one guy said would i like to fight his unbeaten banned by certain tournaments Tyranid army, i rose to the challenge and a day latter we had our battle.... He had the cheak to complain about my 4 Heavy Bolter Havok squad lol (even though I did get defeated i still managed to inflict some pain)

My thoughts on White Drawf article on Nemesis is mixed..... the whole idea of the article was to show how to use loads of Terminators in several differn't army list styles, so including the Nemesis list was justified but think of all the kiddies who are guna have ago with it now?

05-05-2005, 11:59
Nowadays some kids start min-maxing before even starting to think. Funny example: Local McDonald's restaurants started to let you "design" your menue with some more options. My brother saw that and started min-maxing stuff he'd never eat!

I often feel just stupid or too lazy to think when I keep on writing non-cheesy, balanced lists. Pete Haine's approach is very irritating at least.

@Aquila: I also read this quote in someone's sig. So sad.

05-05-2005, 12:01
las and plas marines with termies holds no fear for me. Cause my goffs have about 9 vehicles in a 3000 point list, and 6 of those are artilerry or buggies. The rest is all ground pounders. Armies disappear under that kind of pressure, and las and plas marines are just wasted cause that 35 point lascannon will kill 3 orks in the game.

And then I get into close combat, and everyone dies!

But this approach in the beginners mag is hardly satisfying for other, died in the wool gamers, who don't want to see little kids ripping through their armies with lists straight out of white dwarf. Tactics articles are ok, but lets face it, they should learn thier own lessons, like I did, not have every solution passed to them on a gold plate.

05-05-2005, 12:01
My main problem that the army list that Peter Haines created for the five examples were totaly OOT. A static firepower army does NOT need 6 five man heavy/special weapons squads and two five man, 4 heavy weapons Devestator squads. Its just min maxing at its worst and this is NOT the type of amry list that should be being touted as good by ANY games developer.


05-05-2005, 12:39
Hey, guys...

Noticing a lot of negativity here, and just felt the need to get a few words in...

Haven't you all noticed the trend, the general direction in which GW has been moving 40K for the last few years? Pete Haines is right on track with this. Don't be so hard on the guy for keeping with this trend. He has bills to pay.

I have no trouble with the Iron Warriror List, and I have no problem with the lists as mentioned in Pete's latest article. Each of those lists can only be sucessfull in few situations, but can be used very effectively in the roles for which he designed them. Just as he states.

Our younger players are likely to purchase what they see as cool and will progress from there. Its the normal sequence. I enventually traded off my 52-terminator Deathwing army after spanking everyone so hard in larger games, that I could only get offers of 1500pt games. That sucked. I learned. I enjoyed all of it.

If you are all concerned that youngsters will make poor lists based on an article that states that these lists presented are not definitive by any means, then just lend a hand and a veteran perspective on things. The coaching of other players is part of the game as well, and is often the most fun part.

Delicious Soy
05-05-2005, 13:40
If you are all concerned that youngsters will make poor lists based on an article that states that these lists presented are not definitive by any means, then just lend a hand and a veteran perspective on things. The coaching of other players is part of the game as well, and is often the most fun part.
I think the problem is less with the idea of newcomers powergaming (most of us went through the phase of OMFG teh uber army!!!!!111!!) and more that GW isn't trying to encourage people to move beyond this stage. Instead they're saying that it is not only acceptable, but the status quo. Its a bit hard if GW isn't encouraging the sort of play on which the games were orignally based.

05-05-2005, 14:01
Spot on Soy!


05-05-2005, 17:26
I think another one of the problems is the big focus on tournaments nowadays. Everyone seems to be designing their lists for tournaments, even though they know damn well they will never see the inside of a Grand Tournament or a Games Day.

On other forums, I see lists being crucified, but they always end with the same sentence - "It's a pretty cool list but it won't do very good at a Tournament."

It's like all the casual gaming in the world is now just practice for a Tournament that none of us will ever attend.

The funny part is, even if you DO attend one of the GW tournaments... the focus has never been on winning! (an incredibly smart move by the game designers, if you ask me) Army appearance, selection, and attitude count for far more than just winning games. Any powergaming gets dealt with very harshly by their upset opponents.

I don't know. Maybe the problem is we're just so damn competetive these days. I'll be the first to admit, I hate losing. But I'm really working on it! I enjoy painting and playing the game alot more than I do winning it.

Flame Boy
05-05-2005, 17:35
Well, I'll put my rather unorthadox spin on it. I'm going to be getting back into 40k for 4th edition, and I'm slowly painting up and repainting the Crimson Fist marine army I've been working on since 3rd ed came out (and I stopped playing).

My army list is going to follow the Crimson Fists background, they are just beginning to rebuild their chapter, and they are most likely still engaged with the Orks of the Charadon empire in one way or another. As a result, the Tactical squads will have heavy bolters mainly, I will have a Whirlwind and a squadron of Landspeeder Typhoons with Heavy Bolters... They will probably do well against horde armies, but they will die horribly against marines, (which probably comprises about 70-80% of the army population?) but I'm not bothered, it's the army list I'm working on for now, and I don't mine getting smacked about because my army selection is geared against the army that invaded and razed their homeworld.

05-05-2005, 23:27
Nice call, Flameboy. I try to play my army along the same lines. Storyline over min-maxed, mathematically efficient, tournament uber-cheese. I play Space Wolves, which many people seem to think got severely screwed in 4th. I must admit, their teeth have been filed down a little but I still seem to do all right (by that I mean I win more than I lose).

I always go for Wolf Guard models in my armies. People say there are better uses for the points, and that may be; but I love the idea of grizzled veterans showing the 'pups how it's done. Stick with the story and paint what you like. How boring would this game be if everyone ran with 6 man las/plas squads and chaplains leading assault marines.

On an additional note, the mix-max craze helps GW sell more models. I don't see any lascannons in the tactical squad box. Nor are there 2 assault cannons in the new plastic terminator box. If the kiddies want the latest min-maxed list, they're gonna have to get mom and dad to cough up the cash.

With each army coming out bigger, badder, and meaner than the last; the folks who buy into the uber-list hype are gonna end up with a bunch of armies that don't get played with. Not that having multiple armies is a bad thing, I've got one completely painted, a second almost there, and a third under construction. People should collect and paint armies because they like them, not because they'll win.

Sorry for the rambling guys, but it hurts to see so many potential new players getting fleeced by the omnipotent, scheming beast that GW has become (now that Pete Haines is at the helm). Again, we miss you Andy.

06-05-2005, 00:58
as someone new to 40k, i didnt even know that the nemesis army was cheesy. as far as pete haines writing it i could care less (wasnt he the same guy trying to sell the crappy IG stuff on Ebay?)...for me i got into this hobby because of the fluff and the cool models. i also happen probably like every other newbie to love terminator models. i field a grey knight army primarily cause of their termie models and i field a GKGM with a 9 strong Retinue in games of 1500 points or more. I have learned from playing at my local GW that alot termies die just as fast as power armour marines, deep striking without homers is a scary proposition, and against tau i'm gonna die fast. My local GW guys saw that nemesis list and new i would love to play it cause i love termies. Yet they all knew that i was gonna get toasted by any good gamer. So far no one has ever called me cheesy and i really dont want to be, but as a newbie the article excited me, i bought more termie boxes than anyone in the local gw, and now i'm doing an ultra army and an imperial fist army and i already have a 1500 point WH army to go along with my 2000 point GK army, all in a year and a half. and so far i have definately lost more games than i've won. So couldnt we also agree that the article is a good thing for suckers like me who arent trying to be cheesy but just want to have fun with cool looking models and win a few games along the way.???

06-05-2005, 01:53
I blame it on the squad sizes. Each full squad should have a special and heavy, not tactical squads! I mean, what real marine player uses squads not consisting five or ten men in anything other than Space Wolves anyway? Heretical scum betraying the Great Codex is what you are! Why if I had my way we would all...


It is a depressing trend, and a lamentable one at that. I recall being more than a little bit depressed at Mr. Haines' last work ("I've lost a game! I could learn some new tactics... or I could buy a fourth heavy support choice and be even cheesier!!!")

Note, I fully realise that my Sisters have too many heavy suport choices (3, to a mere 4 troops). This will be rectified when I get a rhino and immolator and am able to get those @%&$ multi-meltas into shootin' range. I also defend my use of Krazamov, whom the Emperor obviously likes concidering the number of S10 AP1/2 shots he saves, and hold my recent win:loss ratio of something like 4:1 to be a result of the Emperor supporting the army with the most purity seals.

Delicious Soy
06-05-2005, 03:55
Terminator LoveEver thought of using the Deathwing list to make an all terminator army? Just lay off the DA specific stuff and you could make it whatever chapter you wanted. Plus you could fit in more termi's for your hard earned/borrowed/stolen dollar.

06-05-2005, 04:17
Bccorin, welcome to the forums :)

That's the kind of attitute we love around here. Play an army because it's fun, it looks good, and you just love the way it plays. Keep that mindset and this can be one of the most fun hobbies you could imagine.

06-05-2005, 07:49
thanks aquila. i love this hobby. i got rid of my comic book collection because i've become a 40k nut. I admit its expensive but every time i see a post about the GW price hikes etc. i cringe because i know i'm one of those "suckers" thats paying $50 for plastic men and $700 for a plane that doesnt fly (but i love my thawk) and addicted to the crack. Its the only hobby that i dont mind losing in, but when your 9 terminators face off against 30 necron warriors and 4 pariahs like i did yesterday and with a lucky orbital bombardment and S6 Power Weapons (and of course the luck of the dice) you actually annihilate them like the fluff says u can...its a pretty cool game:)

Colonial Rifle
06-05-2005, 09:10
I didn't think that 'Nemesis' shooty list looked to good to be honest: What, your using Tac squads with ML? Common, put more las-cannons in there!

I make balanced lists that can be worked on from game to game into an army and I know how to use. I like to think my armies are competitive, but I know, at heart, I'm not tournament player, because I find multiple Min/maxed squads boring to field.

The tournament mentality is really polarizing the hobby. Want to see how bad it's getting, go over to Dakka and see how people daring to suggest not using Min/Maxed Las/plasma squads are branded 'idiots' and '******'.

Jonathan =I=
06-05-2005, 09:49
In petes defense he does hint that using a balenced army is better.

06-05-2005, 10:04
The tournament mentality is really polarizing the hobby. Want to see how bad it's getting, go over to Dakka and see how people daring to suggest not using Min/Maxed Las/plasma squads are branded 'idiots' and '******'.

Sounds about right :rolleyes:

I guess the terminator 'nemesis' army was simply to promote sales of the new models (I actually just skimmed through it as yet more marketing for marines, so I may have to go back and see how bad it is), unfortunatly, we can see that, the majority of the readers of WD won't, and they'll try and run their armies off it.

My marines run 5s and 10s - 5s for scouts and terminators, 10 for power armour - I tend towards officers rather than chaplains because I don't think (what are effectively) religous zealots should be in charge of forces. I'll give independant characters power gloves, even though it makes them a target in assaults.
Because that's the way I want my army, I've played since RT and that's the way I think they should be. I'd rather lose with my armies, go away and think over what went wrong, coming back with better tactics than soundly trounce everyone with a super-optimised army that would win even if there was no one running it, think I'm a god and get soundly thrashed by the first person to come along with the army that over-powers mine, and stalk off swearing about "the beardy-power-gaming-cheese-monger-that-beat-me" - lifes too short to be that intense and serious over a game. It's about skill, tactics and luck, not who can rules-loophole and buy themselves the "perfect" army.

I'd like to see things like random force generators, where you basically get a force which isn't totally suited to your objectives and you have to make do with it(like a foot-slogging guard army in a breakout mission, or speed freaks being caught by a counter-attack and having to go defensive) - which would actually make a very nice tournament IMO - "you think you're good? Try playing against type with non-optimised armies", a lot more scenario based small action missions (commando raids on ammo dumps or command bunkers, assaults on convoys, taking control of a single assassin and having to kill the opposing leader in his command centre without being spotted by the guard company stationed there and so on) rather than the meaningless 1750-2000 point front line company sized battles we're SO used to seeing.

Sometimes, I think you have to tell people that they're able to think for themselves. :rolleyes:

06-05-2005, 16:30
Indeed. One of the most fun games I've had was playing Speed Freeks in a Bunker Assault - as defender.

Sgt John Keel
06-05-2005, 16:43
Most of those sample armies strike me as horribly boring to play, and in all cases but the Static Firepower army, horribly lacking in manpower. There's absolutely no character at all in those armies, and that is what is saddest of all. Why is it that one must sacrifice character to ger effectiveness? Doesn't that hint on that something is horribly wrong somewhere?


Wolflord Bloodangel
09-05-2005, 01:33
I think laying power-gaming blame at tournaments is unfair. Playing tournaments dosnt teach you to min-max, it teaches you to use your squads effectively, and thats what 40k is all about.

Ive been to a fair few tournaments in the last year (maybe around 8ish) and of the hundreds of armies Ive seen (and many games Ive played inthose tournies) I havent seen more than a scattered handful of min-max armies.

Sure they exist, but thats definitely not how you win tournies. A mere 40% of your tourney score is taken from your games (this is GW's own tourney guide). Painting, sportsmanship, and army balance are almost as important as whether or not you can play the game. Personally I think GW have swung things too far as in the end, tourneys should reward the one that plays best. Admittedly GWhave other tourney-templates (a 50 and a 60% generalship templates) though theyre not the preferred one.

Its more the competitive 'friendly' games that lead to min maxing. So many people in this very thread have made calls along the line of 'I knew he was taking Nids, so I brought in all my heavy bolters/whirlwinds' whereas tourney armies must be flexible, else they will be creamed by the opponent theyre not tailored against.

I know for my tourney armies (which are really the forces I play with at friendly games up til the tourney too) arent made to win games first. I pick a theme and a story for my armies, and then go about trying to fit everything I want in to the army. As a space wolf player there are other limitations to the army I impose myself. The most shocking of these is that I will only ever include more Blood Claw squads than Grey Hunter squads if there is a very very good reason (I once made a beast slayer list, with lots of younguns seeking their glory). I also never include Wolf Scouts, for two reasons, firstly, theyll always be operating so far behind enemy lines as to be no where near the battle, and secondly, theyre just too good, and too predictable (when was the last time you remember a Space Wolf army without scouts)...

09-05-2005, 15:41
Sounds about right :rolleyes:

I guess the terminator 'nemesis' army was simply to promote sales of the new models (I actually just skimmed through it as yet more marketing for marines, so I may have to go back and see how bad it is), unfortunatly, we can see that, the majority of the readers of WD won't, and they'll try and run their armies off it.
i would agree with you there, several of the articles in white dwarf are written just to promote the new figures or showcase an army in the case of a codex being released.

there have been serveral battle reports in the past using one army well chosen and the other a tad unbalanced aint said other army normally in a negative way almost to ensure that they lose. Also that whole chaos orks thing seam to be to be just a way of selling more ork and chaos spruces rather than enhancing the ork race.

Although to be fair i would play a "nemisis" (i.e. a cheese encrusted beard) army if the player was in it for fun with perhaps a story to the battle that explains the nature of the army or some other situation that makes it viable. The problem tend to be that such armys have owner that are in it to do one thing alone which is win. Its a worrying situation when the game is only "fun" for one person.

09-05-2005, 22:51
"The problem tend to be that such armys have owner that are in it to do one thing alone which is win. Its a worrying situation when the game is only "fun" for one person."

In 5 years of tourny play I have generally found this not to be the case. Most of the 'cheese' armies I have faced off against have taken the losses in good nature as well as the victories, then it has led on to in depth discussion about the game and the hobby in general.

I have had far more unpleasant games against those who preach a 'fluff above all' attitude. They have tried to make me feel guilty about army selection just because it gave me an advantage (even though I didn't know what they had in their army and mine hasn't changed in the last 3 years!). Some have refused to play me, to which I just shrugged and said it was their choice, no point playing a game if they aren't going to enjoy it. One even tried to get me banned from their club! That particular silliness ended when I offered to swap armies and proceeded to destroy my own 'beard' army with his 'fluff' army.

Pete Haines writes an article article that mentions 'Nemesis Armies'. So what? He regularly attends the GTs and sees what goes on. He doesn't just bash one particular group because it doesn't fit in with his playing style, he embraces it all. Its an aspect of the hobby. GET OVER IT.

Be glad about 'beard' lists. They are helping to shape the Codicies of the future through their performance and rate of attendance at GT.

Also White Dwarf doesn't generally feature much about hardcore tourny play. the players that do get in are those with the superbly painted/converted armies or have placed well for consecutive years.

Quite frankly you have no right to tell the other player how to construct their army. It would be like me coming over to your house and changing the TV channel because you are watching something I don't like. Pretty annoying eh? Your gaming happiness is not your opponents job! If you sit there and bitch about his army selection all game then you deserve to be miserable. If you play the game, lose and say "fair game, I got spanked", and then just decide not to play them again because its not your kind of game, kudos to you.

Of course, if your opponent is a moaning cow AND has a hard army, then feel free to complain... ;) Nothing worse that a whining opponent.

Just find yourself some like-minds. No-one is forcing you to play against these armies, unless you are at a tourny. In which case, what were you expecting? :)

Comrade JC
10-05-2005, 01:01
Quite frankly, min/max is not neccisarily cheesy. (Ok i can see 6 las/plas squads getting stupidbut..) First of all, if you are fielding 30 marines, 6 sqauds offers more tactical versatility than 3, even without special weapons. More importantly, min squads will sometimes fit better with the fluff of an army.

My army has been called cheesy, with 3 LR at 3000pts. However, it consists of a whopping great 40 models and is useless in a meat grinder. It excells at carried, surgical strikes which is what I designed it for, including the fluff.

Perhaps the force orgs should be more restricitng, or perhaps some sort of fluff should be mandatory in tournaments (I only play friendly so I can't comment much here) in order to restrict so called "power-gaming"

I agree with Brushmonkey, we shouldn't be telling everyone how to build their armies. Every time I post a list on Portent, it's "You need more troops," simply because I design surgical, scenario based armies. It doesn't make my army better or worse, but less versatile. An opponent with a well balanced army can counter this with unit choices, deployment and in-game strategem. And although the strategy to 40k often comes down to 85% unit choice, certain things can be done to tip the scales. Use audacity and courage, design something new and deal with the 300 gaurdsman army, or the las/plas squads. They both seem allergic to cc :D

Delicious Soy
10-05-2005, 01:16
I agree they aren't too overpowered, but they are incredibly boring to play against. Just because you only have to take two troops doesn't mean that you stop there and fill out everything else (although admittedly I have been guilty of this in the past, 4 troops is good in 2000pts IMO). Having a min/maxed army is annoying not only because its boring, but it gives a direct insight into the player behind it, they aren't going to be in it for fun, they're there to win, opponents be damned. It's a social hobby, not a competitive one.

10-05-2005, 02:14
Everyone needs to play for the reasons they enjoy. If you encounter a powergamer and do not like it, finish the game and go on. At least power gamers / min/max players don't usually cheat. Those are the guys who ruin my fun.

10-05-2005, 08:21
I find the static fire power armies that hide underneath the "Nemesis" explanation boring, unoriginal and frankly just a way of extorting the army list to an insane degree.

Mr. Haines states that cheese doesn't exist. Seemingly, he doesn't listen to the gamers when something negative comes his way. He was the one who created the Iron Warrior list, while not inherently beardy, is able to be hideously extorted, mutated and shaped into something that is abhored by veteran players all around the world. The cries of "OMFG Ir0n W4rriors are the Cheese!!111!!" echo across every forum yet Mr. Haines either doesn't notice and/or care. Probably the latter.

The min/maxed squads of Space Marines or even better Chaos Marines (seeming as they are 1 point cheaper so you save 10 points for every 10 marines...OMG another plasma gun!!!!) in armies that consist of entirely shooting units are boring and obviously designed with the intention to obliterate the opponent under a hail of bolter, plasma, melta and lascannon fire.

I don't find these armies to beat. They have incredible weaknesses as Mr. Haines does state. What ticks me is that Games Workshop actually encourages these styles of play, power gaming if you will, because these Grand Tournaments are such revenue raisers for them. Why? Because prior to a GT, everyone will go out and buy new models and paints to make their list 'ub3r unbeatable eh?' and as such it GW supports them and the style of play to an insane degree.

Usually these players are people that are just going through the stage of "I like Space Marines, these guys are cool when painted with a spray can and enamel paints" and generally learn gamers etiquette, playing styles and move onto a new army or specialise their Chapter to a different style that is both fun, fair and interesting to play with and against.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all power gamers are evil people intent on dominating the GT world. As I said before, a lot of them are just youngsters or new players who don't fully understand that these 'nemesis armies' as Mr. Haines calls them, are boring, are despised by the veteran gaming crowd and that there are far more interesting, fun and fair ways to play. But then the people that are there purely to win and ignore every other part of the hobby are being encouraged by GW, thus increasing their growth like a cancerous tumour.

11-05-2005, 07:03
" It would be like me coming over to your house and changing the TV channel because you are watching something I don't like.

Conversely, min/maxing is like calling me over, and then watching a show I hate. Over and over again. For days. Why would I keep coming over? There should be a little give and take.

Delicious Soy
11-05-2005, 12:32
Brushmonkey: Care to provide a sample list? I believe that fluff and effectiveness aren't mutally exclusive and some people try to pull the fluff excuse on anything.