Manouverability

[Master Bryss]

@Puppy:

In my 1500 Dark Eldar in the old dex, I had a grand total of 4 anti-tank weapons. It looks bad from your standpoint does it not? But from my standpoint, that is good by my defenition (it theoretically can kill all units) and I haven't lost all the games I've played with it.


You believe there are army builds that work better than others, and thats fine. But none has a glaringly obvious flaw. You may belive Footdar is flawed in that it has fewer "good options." Good from the standpoint of which level of play?

And I'm pretty sure he's aiming for hybrid anyway, not all foot.

[Mal]

puppy, there is a big difference between a popular competative build and an ultra competative build...

the fabled 'ultra competative build' is the perfect army list... a list without any flaws or weaknesses... no codex has the abality to make such a list, if it was this is all you'd see at high level competative events.

every codex has the option to put out more then 3 competative builds... it can put out as many as the players can think of... you just have to remember that the army list isn't the only factor in determining the competativeness of an army.

[AbusePuppy]

@Puppy:

In my 1500 Dark Eldar in the old dex, I had a grand total of 4 anti-tank weapons. It looks bad from your standpoint does it not? But from my standpoint, that is good by my defenition (it theoretically can kill all units) and I haven't lost all the games I've played with it.

Theoretically, almost any list can kill anything. Theoretically my Marines can punch a Leeman Russ to death, but that's not exactly a plan I would rely on. A "good" list will have flexible units that can fill multiple roles well, not just if you get lucky,

You believe there are army builds that work better than others, and thats fine. But none has a glaringly obvious flaw. You may belive Footdar is flawed in that it has fewer "good options." Good from the standpoint of which level of play?

I dunno, I call Footdar's lack of mobility and fragility "glaringly obvious flaws." It is competitive, or even functional, only at the lowest levels of play because its fundamental strategy ("I have dudes, they walk around and can sorta shoot") is not well-supported by the codex it's built from.

puppy, there is a big difference between a popular competative build and an ultra competative build...

the fabled 'ultra competative build' is the perfect army list... a list without any flaws or weaknesses... no codex has the abality to make such a list, if it was this is all you'd see at high level competative events.

Hence why I don't think there is any single "best" build in the game. There are, however, many builds which are head and shoulders above others; the reason you don't see these exclusively dominating tournaments is because player skill, luck, and the local metagame are all additional factors that determine who wins. If there are 50% Ork players in your area, it will skew which armies win tournaments in that area.

every codex has the option to put out more then 3 competative builds... it can put out as many as the players can think of... you just have to remember that the army list isn't the only factor in determining the competativeness of an army.

Codices are a finite resource- no matter how inventive the player is, he is limited by what is written in the book. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Some books simply have more useful options than others, and the "top end" builds from some books are better than others. Chaos Daemons do not have any good, plentiful, cheap ways to deal with transports- absolutely none. As a result, the book simply can't build a strong list, as being unable to kill transports in 5E is crippling. Necrons are just horribly overcosted and have almost zero upgrades to choose from, not to mention countless other issues. Neither of these books can field a competitive army, no matter how creative the player may be.

(When talking about different competitive lists, I generalize to major archetypes. Two all-jumpers BA lists with Libby and Priests and VV are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing if they include the same basic units. When I say 3+ lists, I mean clearly differentiated lists that play very differently and have different strengths and weaknesses.)

[Cyberscape7]

Okay, just had a game with my eldar and did a bit of reviewing. One note I've taken; my wraithlord. It is armed with 2 flamers a wraithsword and a shuriken cannon and a s you can probably tell its a CC wraithlord. Now although it doesnt have the best ranged firepower I don't want to build a new wraithlord with long range Tank huntin guns. All I want is to work out how to use this wraithlord effectively. Thoughts?

[DarkLink]

every codex has the option to put out more then 3 competative builds... it can put out as many as the players can think of... you just have to remember that the army list isn't the only factor in determining the competativeness of an army.

You do have to have a pretty loose definition of competitive to apply this to Grey Knights or Necrons, though.

[Master Bryss]

That game he just had can be found here now I've finished the write-up:

[URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=11372"]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=11372[/URL]

Might give a better overview of his style with Eldar.