I've always wondered something...

[LordGrise]

I will confess, I don't troll the army lists much. I am not a competitive player (I'm more a frustrated modeler and modder than anything else) and when I play, it's for fun. If I find myself up against one of those WAAC (Win At Any Cost, for the uninitiated - I was for a long time) guys, I will take the dive every time. Why? Because the one time I gritted my teeth and pulled out the win - by luck of the dice, I claim no particular tactical skills - the guy kept coming back. Even after he won the next week, he came back, week after week, it was like he had something to avenge or prove or something.

I did learn tactics and unit builds from him, mostly by dint of having it beaten into me by the flavor of the week army swinging the dismembered corpse of one of my Fire Warriors. In self defense, my army building improved - by which I mean that I can now throw an army together in five minutes. Oh, and I learned the Creed of the Markerlight very well indeed. But army lists, for me, seem to be about folks wanting suggestions for nastier and more killy builds, irregardless of theme.

[the jeske]

Even after he won the next week, he came back, week after week, it was like he had something to avenge or prove or something

its called testing a list . a single game doesnt prove much . one has to check if it works under the 3 different scenarios [and/or any special ones the gaming comunity in your area uses] . and even then a single game is probably not enough . to check one needs around 9 games if your opponents army has a totaly new gameplay style . It is even more games when the army your playing is totaly new , because if your want to know how to play your own army [and both know its weaknesses , possible bad match ups etc] you cant learn it durning a tournament[or you can but it will take 4-5 tournaments and to win something you will have to be very lucky to win stuff].

But what is anyone really going to say? Do I expect to win with the list? Not really. Is it fun when my raiders hit a battle line and storm into combat? Hell Yeah. Tactics are a moot point here (obviously more so than other examples I could have made) and if someone suggests obliterators in a list like this i'll probably die a little inside.

then why the hell are you posting something like this in the list section ? the army is bad . it needs to be lucky to win and the opponent has to either be incompetent , be unable to deal with LR rush builds or both at the same time. your not goinng to change your list , so why ask . your also missing an important part of people like you posting such "builds" . a noob will see it and may think "someone says he is owning up with such a thing[remember in general people play w40k for around a year they dont want lists that dont work] . he buys the models , maybe switchs a unit or two and finds out that the army sucks . Will he bring more players to the game ? no . is it possible that he will quit sooner then later ? yes . Is it possible that the gaming community which are builds out of 3-4 man groups most of time will lose more then 1 player ? of course .
That is why the "fluff" player[what ever that means because everything that can be taken out of a codex is automaticly fluffy] do not help with posting their bad list and sometimes also hurt the gaming community.

I dont mind telling a dude that buying 5 man zerkers with 5 plasma pistols to do drive by is a bad idea . he is learning . but people who are playing for more then a year should not be posting stupid stuff or worse claim that something is bad when is clearly isnt .

I remember I posted one list saying I was playing against nids and was given a completely re-written list full of meltas to take out tanks.

because meltas instant warriors , zoas , doom and hurt MC ? and every non vaniala meq army deals with everything smaller then a MC through hth . be it a reserv or non reserv army

Personally[so you do understand that someone else may disagree righ?] I love the thunderfire [tastes have nothing to do with facts. that fact that you like something doesnt make it good]cannon yes its fragile[fact . aka thunder is bad] but it can do good[when lucky or against very very specific builds . which makes it random at best . random doesnt equal good] and looks awesome.[again a taste thing has nothing to do with actual good/bad of the unit ]

So what is the problem here . You have a problem with the fact that people tell you the truth , that a thunder is a sub optimal option . Truth is the problem ? what would you rather want , that we rather lie to you about the thunder ?
If a unit choice is bad then it is bad , when it is good it is good . There is not it is sometimes good and it looks cool in the list section . because the list section is about list building . It is not about how you paint your thunnder , how you scratch build/resculpted it or how it gives you shivers when you look at it .

Also if you dont want to hear about the thunder and realy have to post a list in the list section . then dont ask what people think about the build . ask them how they would build a list for maxmized use of thunder cannons . then you will get the obligatory "you know they blow up on glance" [because it has to be said] and then get use X,Y,Z. That is how list sections work .

[eldargal]

So people who play armies for fun and background instead of just to win hurt the gaming community?

That is why the "fluff" player[what ever that means because everything that can be taken out of a codex is automaticly fluffy] do not help with posting their bad list and sometimes also hurt the gaming community.

[Kawauso]

I love fluffy army lists, and builds that don't just spam the 'best' units in their respective books.

It's not to say making a list unlike them is bad, either. As long as you're shoring up weaknesses brought on by taking certain sub-optimal units you can do quite well. At the end of the day, though, I still play for fluff and fun.

But I really don't see anything wrong with asking for critique and insight into tweaking/using a list even if it's not a WAAC tournament list - I can't believe how many people are saying it's useless to ask for insight on them. There's a middle ground between fluff-list-in-need-of-advice and super-optimal-tourny-level.

[Chumbalaya]

So people who play armies for fun and background instead of just to win hurt the gaming community?

It sounds just as silly the other way around, I assure you.

Abuse Puppy pretty much nailed it. Posting a "for fun" list doesn't generate much discussion because it's so subjective.

fluff list thread:
"Here's my list, I think it's fluffy."
"Cool."
"Awesome."

[Colonel Bindoff]

then why the hell are you posting something like this in the list section ? the army is bad . it needs to be lucky to win and the opponent has to either be incompetent , be unable to deal with LR rush builds or both at the same time. your not goinng to change your list , so why ask .

Actually, I wasn't. I had thought it fairly clear from context, but just in case you missed it, my point was that there is very little point in posting a list like this because no-one is going to give me advice on how to have fun, which for me is what the fluffy builds are about.

your also missing an important part of people like you posting such "builds" . a noob will see it and may think "someone says he is owning up with such a thing[remember in general people play w40k for around a year they dont want lists that dont work] . he buys the models , maybe switchs a unit or two and finds out that the army sucks . Will he bring more players to the game ? no . is it possible that he will quit sooner then later ? yes . Is it possible that the gaming community which are builds out of 3-4 man groups most of time will lose more then 1 player ? of course .
That is why the "fluff" player[what ever that means because everything that can be taken out of a codex is automatically fluffy] do not help with posting their bad list and sometimes also hurt the gaming community.

The issue here is that it assumes that people don't read anything but the army list, and just copy/paste from the net. If someone says that they want ideas on what else to add to a fluffy army or ideas on tactics to use with the one they have, then that should be enough for even the most intellectually challenged among us to realise it's not a tourney winning list. It's not our problem if people don't read, and generally I find people are more than willing to help new players make sensible decisions when asked directly anyway. Obviously this advice is unlikely to extend to '3 Land Raiders and two Zerker squads is a good giggle'.

Point is really that posting lists is fine whatever your reason, and people shouldn't feel like they can't use part of the forum just because the people who haunt it don't play the same way as they do.

The whole WAAC v Fluff argument is ridiculous. They are both good ways to play the game, and both a lot of fun. I enjoy crushing people in a competitive game as much as the next man, but sometimes I want my guard to be outnumbered 2:1 whilst desperately trying to escape across a bridge or something. Is either more fun than the other? Depends entirely on your motivations for playing, who your opponent is, and certainly in my case, what mood you're in. Would I expect someone to break out the flames on a posted list just because they didn't read why I'd posted it? No. Of course not.

[Dubledox]

If you don't want feedback on how to make the list better, then why post it on the internet at all? Unless it's part of a battle report or marking your progress for a campaign or something.

[The Plumber]

EAT MY FLUFF!!!....

Astorath the grim

reclusiarch/ combi-flamer

10 death company/2x pw, fist

5 death company/jump packs

5 death company/ assault cannon razor

death co dread /blood talons

stormraven (painted death co, obviously)

what say you to that sirs?

[daboarder]

you know you guys are operating under a massive misconception.

Just because someone takes a themed list don't mean they don't want to win. perhaps like myself they want to do their utmost to win within the constraints of the theme they've set themselves. this is where advice on tactics come in instead of assuming that the player is playing for some kid of lols.

I have a foot slogging deathguard force backed up by dread's and a large termie squad, if I were to post it I would like advice with recommendations on how to play it as is, for example should I castle and DS the termies and obliterators, or would I be better walking up the board firing as I go. Which typical opponents should I change tactics for and can you help my recognize and therefore account for the greatest liabilities in my llist.

THESE^ are the questions you should answer, instead of taking the attitude that the payer must deliberately be playing for no purpose other than to roll dice.

[Adra]

Maybe people have to be more specific on what they want from their list post discussion. i think you also have to except that "how do i make this list better" is an easier question for alot of players to answer. "how do i play with this hamstrung list" is much harder to answer so your going to get fewer people responding.