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 (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.


RonSaikowski said...

I suppose it comes down to what you're looking for from the game and that will determine how you go about building your list.

Aldonis said...


Was really shocked at Adepticon with the number of Leafblower Guard type lists - at least 25% there.

It really hit me how much the internet list building thing impacts the tournament scene today. But another thing I saw was a lot of mediocre performances because it didn't fit play styles or people were not familiar with it.

Think the tailoring of a list to your personal style is missing today and something that people are going to need to think about.

Col. Corbane said...

Excellent piece.

I've been thinking the same for a long time. I think sometimes, the guys writing these lists actually forget that they're going to be play with by someone else and not themselves.

I'm a cautious player and so many of the lists just don't suit my play style. It's far better to develop your own than using an army tailored for someone else's play style.