Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Internet 40K Lists
So a thought that I had around the whole concept of "Uber-List" posting on the internet.
What the internet list posting/debate topics totally miss at is taking into account the person RUNNING the list and their play styles. Different people have and use different tactics (yes some have none) and will play better with an army that fits their playing styles.
For example - I play two types of armies resonably well. A tough in your face army (Nurgle/Wolves) and a dodge and weave speed/mobility army (Mech Eldar). With those armies - I probably won't lose - 90%+ a win/draw. However - give me a glass-hammer army (Dark Eldar) or horde armies (Ork/Bugs) and watch the crappy play commence. With Gun-line armies I'm a middle of the road player (Marine builds/SOB) - same with Marine assault armies (TH/SS Termy-LR types).
I think that's what is missing from BOL's posts - (JWOLF, Goatboy, Bigred, etc) and from a lot of the lists I see on YTTH and really any site - what types of play style does the list perform well with? What Jwolf is saying here http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/05/40k-tactics-outflanking-for-objectives.html (take away the personal bias he seems to have towards what many consider sub-par units) is that there is a different level of tactics that many don't explore or consider around reserve/outflanking armies. Having used it heavily with my Eldar - it's a good solid strategy - especially against Mech Guard - which is a heavily prevelant army currently. Guess it's really up to the individual to decide that, but think we should keep that in mind when we call an article/list/individual crappy.
One mans crap is another man's treasure.