Exploring your own codex or following the net list

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

So this has always been a hotly debated and contested argument that i've had with people in the past. When you get your codex you should read through it a few times try and get a grasp of how your army is intended to play and then start from there. Other people look to the dreaded net list and look and go okay so this is how i play my army and this is what i need to buy. Me i am to stubborn and certinally to muh of a verteran to simply follow the internet when it comes to list building and construction. Yet so many people fall into the category. What happened? at what point did gamers in general decided that it is easier to take the top tournament list and copy and paste it and run that as your list. For me i never understand why it happens. Do the netlisters ask what the list faced how the list held up? do they even understand the lists limittions? its pros its cons? i remember a long time ago i got dragged into a flamming war on one of the other blogs we shall call it whineseer. The basic argument had been running standard razorbacks over running either las plas or one of the other configurations. This is where i know my loathing for the net list began. You had so many people jump down my throat personally attack me because i went againt the man.... yes apparently the internet as a man and when the man says lasplas is the only way to run a razorback it must be true... Alas my argument stemmed from the fact that the points spend on las plas could and were spent on other units to mak them better and the list i ran with was ompetitive and fun for me to play.

But i Digress so what i want to know or atleast the ?'s i would like answered are when did we simply stop playing our own books and seeing for ourselves what works and what doesn't work and fall into this if your army doesnt have x and y then its garbage or this whole concept of your an idiot if you don't agree with something and you don't just take the internets word for it and actually play a unit or an army for yourself and see what you like and what you don't. It could just be my nature but i'm never one to just take the internets word for anything. i play test and try different combinations with in my own codex to find what units i like and what units i don't like or which units do not fit the way i want my army to interact.

[Chaoschrist]

Netlists aren't a wargaming exclusive thing. As a Magic: the gathering player, I run into a similar situation a lot. And even moreso when I play online, where you run into bigger variation of playerbase than the local store.

Netlists are obviously a thing every since lists get publication. And I guess, that whenever you can win something, when something is competitive, you want to play the best. Some people don't play for fun, they play for the competition (whether some wargames have solid rules for competitive play is a totally different matter). And if a certain list, or certain units show up a lot more on average, that's where they become auto includes and netlists are becoming a thing.

Also keep in mind, that with a hobby like ours. Its expensive as is, and no one likes a losing army. One could take responsibility and blame it on him/herself with the fact that a crappy list has been played. But it seems much easier to take something that is tried and tested. I guess, to some extent you could see it as being "crowdsourced". And with the aforementioned pricetag, spending a lot on an army with fancy models that underperform, only people who are actually in it for fun might do their own lists, might want to spend it.

There's another category of players I've run into, in the past. The tournament players who only play tournaments and never have time for a "casual" game. Thus they don't even have a clue what's good, and thus rely on the tried and tested by other people even more.

A friend of mine, who isn't really a netlister often has units in his armies, because he heard they were good on some forum. If I ask him why he plays them he has no clue, he just plays them because people said it was a good unit to play. This in turn makes up for not utilizing them the way intended and afterwards complaining how people are wrong with this idea unit X is good. That's a similar idea to people blatantly netlisting IMO. So often I end up discussing the use of said units and point out how they are intended (since I clearly read more lists where people justify their choices, rather than just see a shorthand list on a forum with no pro's and cons listed whatsovever).

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I dunno but for me i buy some models because i like them some are fun to paint or i have an interesting use for them floating somewhere in the back of my head. So when i build a list each unit has a particular purpose. when i took an imperial guard squad it was an easy investment for me 300 points got me 45 men decent weapons and several or one large unit that was hard to shift. there is always a reason for my madness or atleat an idea behind why i took said unit. Now when you go up against someone who doesn't know how their list works or why it works the same uber cheese list seems to fall flat on its face and underperform. For me it comes down to what do i want unit x to do and what i expect unit x to do as opposed to some one said i need to take this list and i can steam roller anyone i face. well do you know why that list is so good? did you ask what opponents that list fought? if your list is rock and you run into paper does that mean your list is horribe? no it just means your list that usually punches face just got face punched because you ran into a hard counter. do you understand why that list is yoru hard counter?

like a guard blob it has its pros and it has its con's it all depends on who your facing and what the situation is. for me my bloob squad has learned to break apart when facing my buddies tau. he likes to use a unit with a drone controler and a ton of drones. thats alot of twin linked bs5 shooting at str5 so for me its alot of dead guardsmen every time he gets to shoot my blob squad. now when i break up that same unit at most he can kill is a 5 man command squad or a 10 man squad that leaves 30-35 men to turn their guns on his unit in my turn and shell it into submission.

For me i think it just comes down to the auto win button so many people look for or that army that plays itself and really takes no finess or no thought to play. I think it goes to show you how while yes the player pool expanding is a good thing but when you have people that come into the hobby and don't know why something is good but just know that its good and thats why they took it what does that say about the game in general? i look at it as its a loss for the game as a whole. My friend chris for example he is insane for taking his unit of mandrakes in frindle games he knows the always under perform him but he uses them because he likes the models he took the time and effort to paint them up to a high standard so while he knows they are a horrible unit he still uses them.

For me i would much rather loose to a player who knows his army and understands why is army is top tier then to beat one of the so called net lists because the player didn't know how to use the list or was expecting his auto win.

[Learn2Eel]

When I'm doing one of my codex reviews, I tend to look around a bit to see what the general consensus is, but not before I go put that unit through its paces and form my own opinion of it. I've rarely found I changed my opinion to suit what everyone else was saying - the best example of this was the Wraithknight. Most were saying it was a mediocre unit that didn't compare well to a Riptide, or that two Wraithlords were better value than a single Wraithknight. However, I stuck to my guns that it would be a premier Eldar Heavy Support choice throughout all those months. I feel somewhat vindicated that it is now generally accepted to be one of the strongest units in the codex, but I'm not too fussed about being "right" or "wrong" really. The thing with the Wraithknight was that most just didn't realize how a monster of its particular capabilities fit so well into the new Eldar army lists.

On the topic of netlists, when I am new to a codex that I haven't reviewed, one that I am just starting up, I will often have a look at a range of tournament builds to see what competitive players are using in their armies. The reason for this is that I am on a pretty limited budget, and thus I can't really afford to buy a unit if I won't use it - an issue I am now experiencing with my Thousand Sons. See, I'm happy to play with "under-powered" units, but I still design my army lists with victory in mind; I prefer playing a "hard" army as I feel it grows my skills as a tactician more than just taking a "netlist" would. However, I don't just go out and buy what the "netlists" have going for them; I make an informed judgement on what units I want to use in my army list, with competitiveness/model quality/ease of construction/cost/etc all being factors in my purchases. This was very much the case with my Tyranids; I liked the Pyrovore models, but I just couldn't justify their use in any of my usual army lists. Given that I am incapable of painting (hand issues) it means there really wouldn't be much value for such a model/unit at all, as I can't paint it and have it on display, and nor can I really say "I have those things in my army". Still, I'll take "under-powered" units if they fit the theme of my army list. Look at my Crimson Fists; thirty Sternguard, twenty Tacticals, thirty Devastators, and Pedro. I'm representing a specific event in the history of the Crimson Fists', with a few alterations here and there. None of the units are strictly "under-powered", but I am running them in a way that one would usually not use them. Sternguard on foot with nothing but their bolters? Tacticals on foot with heavy bolters and flamers? Very odd. Perhaps it is weak, but hey, I'm more than happy with it.

Often, players that take "netlists" aren't so much looking to win games, but more are trying to get a strong base for an army to which they can expand upon with their own choices later. Netlists save people from making big mistakes on units they grow bored of or can't justify using in-game. A lot of the "netlists" I see used are in the hands of juniors to a given army, not a player looking to crush others. In that sense, I'm happy that "netlists" exist to be used as lax guidelines for a beginner of a particular army or game system to base their list off. The best part about the "netlists" as well is that they are entirely optional; this is a hobby where, unless you are a tournament player, winning is very much secondary to having fun. Most hobbyists are great people who won't rub it into your face if you lose a few games early on; this gives players the incentive to build up their army more and more until they personally feel they have reached an acceptable point.

[MajorWesJanson]

My chapter has been an IH successor for years now, and when the new book came out, I saw the fun in artificer chapter master on bike, though I have been running burning blade rather than the relic shield + TH. And grav guns on bikes is just obvious. So are thunderfire cannons, they are nasty now. But I'm not really running a netlist, I'm going with a mix of units that I like and units I play to encourage myself to paint the things.

[daboarder]

I go my own way, it doesn't always work, but it usually makes for a more fun game.

[mysterex]

On the topic of netlists, when I am new to a codex that I haven't reviewed, one that I am just starting up, I will often have a look at a range of tournament builds to see what competitive players are using in their armies. The reason for this is that I am on a pretty limited budget, and thus I can't really afford to buy a unit if I won't use it

Agree with this. I've bought a few things over the years because some aspect of their rules appealed to me. Then after assembling, painting and playing with the model a few times, decide they're rubbish and they stay on the shelf.

Checking out the consensus on units means I don't spend money on stuff I won't get much use out of. Doesn't mean that I'll buy a met list to start a new army though, the fluff has to appeal to me in some way.

[chicop76]

Typically I try to play and buy what I like. With Tau for example I have stayed with Kroot from the beginning. With nids it's been Termagaunts, I liked the re roll to wound on strength 4.

Actually Daemons is a list I been playing since day one. From day one I had the flammer ds bomb which others was saying go fiends or crushers. However flamers with masque did sooo much first strike damage I decided to stay with it. I used 5 man horror squads with bolt. Cheap princes with bolt and gaze. Most games I would deep strike in and wipe out 10% to 80 % of the army before they could do anything. My shooting with hth elements tend to end the game by turn 3. After daemons went to ard boys and after white dwarf update you seen flamer drop list everywhere.

However I try out the units I like and rotate units or proxy units to see what is good and what is not.

I tend to look at net list, so I can counter that build with the list I create.

For example I won't Farsight bomb, but have no problem with solo suicide suits deep striking with 2 melta guns.

If my list happens to be a net list, it's due to me creating the list and it happens to be like the net list since I am playing with the models I want to play.

Honor Guard is a good example of a unit I would use, but rarely seen on the table.

[Wolfshade]

We live in a society where sucess is rewarded and instant gratification is required, so people find a list that won a competition and copy it.

A little while back I posted a list that I was going to be using against tyranids indeed I said so explicity and then I have comments of people replacing weapons with meltas and even a magna grapple. I mean really, what on earth has a magna grapple to do with fighting Nids?!

I have an idea of how an army should be played, mainly influnced by fluff, hence my BAs are mainly assault squads and everything is rapid moving, rather than creating gun lines or what have you. This is similiar to my gaming group, but then we play pre-arranged games so we know which army we will be facing but not its composition and owing to large collections it could be anything.

We tend to analyse what units worked well for us and what didn't then consider what the short comings of the list was and next time swap something out or in to improve it.

The big thing with net lists vs. your own creations is that with your own creation you know exactly how it is going to work, you know what each unit is best at doing and how to engage different threats. With a netlist it will take you time and effort to learn how to use this army while pressumably losing.

The other thing is that these net lists are fine in the local that they are created in but if your local has a different meta then the list shan't be as effective.

The netlist orginally won as someone took time to learn and craft it, they won the tourney not because of the list alone, but through superior tactics and strategy and most importantly of all a bit of luck. The best list in the world is useless if you are rolling all 1s.

[Deadlift]

Mix of both for me really, I don't really go for "net lists" but I do try and read tactics to get help with what I have. Iyanden as an example was an army I had wanted to do for a very long time. When the codex dropped and then the supplement I was really very happy. I loved the new models but wanted to build a semi competitive army around the ghost theme. So yes I have taken 3 waveserpents as they are awesome and help with the limited range of my troops. It's not a net list I play but I do look for advantages for my list to make it better.
Learn2Eels reviews are really good for anyone looking for indepth reviews that help you get the most from what you want to use.