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.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not too keen on Netlists meself.

I've always seen them as just a bit 'rock paper scissors', in that a netlist becomes successful, so the next netlist is designed to trump that netlist, ad infinitum. That to my mind sucks all the fun and interest out the game, as it just boils down to one upmanship.

Far better I be left with my Codex or Army Book, locked in the lavvy, cackling manically as I see a potentially dirty combo!

[Katharon]

Long story, short -- play how you like and what makes you happy.

[Eberk]

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.

Well, people haven't changed at all. There have always been people who used another persons list or ideas for a good combo.

Only difference is that now you have access to a zillion lists and people to talk to instead of the 20-some that used to be in the club you were playing. Nowadays it is so much easier to just plain copy a list.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I think for me it has to do with people who tell you, your an idiot or that you don't know how to play the game when they see you using a unit. well for me i look at them as the idiot. when i ask them why said unit is so much better its always a rehash of some one elses words or its go to this blog and you will see why its the cheese. Well if you don't know why its good yet your taking it what gives you the right to look down upon someones list or to criticize their list's? I have no problem respecting someones opinion when they respect mine but its been my own experience that the netlister's biggest advocates do not and have this attitide that their some how superior players because they are taking a list that won nova or placed x in ard boyz. But as many other's have stated just because you have a netlist doesn't mean your smart enough to know how to use it. For me most games always break down into 3 parts part one is the list part two is tactics which i combine with table set up part 3 is the biggest variable of them all luck. some days the dice are with you and other's they are against you.

So with that in mind i will say i am not against player's using units on a budget so going for units that are typical for most armies i am not opposed to. But i don't think that a players primary concern should be will my list win my a tournament. For my i will be one of the first to tell ya i always build a list that tends to be what i would considered middle of the road it will win me some games and it will loose me some games. i'm the guy who no matter how much i try every guard and marine list some how fills up with tanks tanks and more tanks :) i've been a tread head since i got into the game. Yet my armoured company is the first one to bring in a vendatta or a vulture one because i payed alot of money for them and 2 because they are very good. i know in 5th i ran vendetta's not because they were a flier but because they looked cool they were a transport they fit my armoured theme and they filled a role i was sorely lacking in my list a mobile tank hunter that had 3 rerollable las canons. Yet my buddy tried his vendetta once it failed him and he hasn't even used it in 6th yet. This is the same guy that after some brow beating we got to try things like manticores and griffons and since then he actually enjoys them.

I know for my i want the most enjoyment from my game but i also do not like to be steam rolled. when i was dumb enough to frequent whineseer i was stupid enough to post my lists on the forum and watch as the net listers would come through trash them and tell me i was an idiot for usin x over y. now i make a list tweak it after playing a min of 2-3 and usually only hange a unit or 2 at most and then go from there again. I've learned that once i have an established core for each force that my games tend to level off and after hat its all just icing on the cake.

[chicop76]

Well I play to win. However depending on the army I have tone down versions that I can play which are not as bad as other list. Even so my list or made to not lose. Basically I been playing a nice guard list or with sister allies which are nit over the top. Than I power up to grey knights which is a better list, but not too bad since I play with units I like. Next is the nids which are harder to beat than Tau and Daemons.

If I am playing for fun I will not play Tau or Daemons. Nids are borderline tournament list. That being said I do make my list with tournament list in mind. I try to cover horde and marine type armies usually in my list. For Daemons I get critiifor using the skull cannon a lot. I at least always play with one since it has helped me win games several times. Not due to giving my trools grenades, but denying cover saves, they are great vs pleague bearers since it denies fnp and cover saves. It's awesome against guard who love to hide behind aegis shielding.

Anyway I do get annoyed that people don't play test models and just go off web list. This guy won a tournament with iron warriors and white scars. I looked at his list and told him too bad I didn't play against him. He bragged on killing my riptides and I told him good luck with that with an 18" ranged weapon against a 72" ranged weapon and kroot pre game infiluto reduce the scouting.

I do admit that I can't kill all his bikes, but I can take chunks out of his army and overwatch still hurts. It will boil down to him not wiping out my units in combat and not staying out in the open.

In a game like that I would have to target his almost 300 point bike lord, so my riptides can actually win in combat.

Anyway I fear hound rush much more than bike rush. Although me going 2nd would hurt. I personally think a game like that would be determined by who went first more than anything else.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

True but at the same time you both could play the same list against each other 3 times and come out with 3 different results. thats why for me when i adjust a list i try and swing 1-2 unit at the most. alot can be changed based on opponent then changed based on who goes first and second and another add in is based on terrain. there are so many variable that for me to change a list it takes alot of thought and alot of actual testing before i consider a unit to be trash. i look at what it faced and what it was able to accomplish.

take the leman russ exterminator. in my current list i run 2 of them before i spent the time and money on them i looked to see what role they would fill and what i expected from them. For me they are great tanks. They do what i expect them to do and i won't make an armoured list with out them. then there is my basic leman russ depending on the list i take it has a place or it doesn't it all depends on the role i want it for. If i play on a table that's terrain heavy it might not be the star of the game if i play on a terrain light table then it might be aces for me.

There is just so much that goes into list building and then into application that i believe it is very difficult to just sit back and listen to the interweb for what works and what doesn't i know right now my biggest concern is do i want heavy mortars or do i want griffons chances are i will get 2-3 of each because i like the models and they will be interesting to paint but still which version gets used will depend on which list i am using and what accompanies them. Mortars work better in my foot guard while the griffons work better for me in my mechanized.

[chicop76]

Typically my tournament Tau is not the same as my regular playing Tau. I typically rotate units in and out so I am familiar with the other units. When I play tournaments I typically go for the units that has worked. This way if I always play someone they won't read my tournament list and know how to counter it before hand.

My play style changes a lot where I can be very aggressive or sit back and shoot. With Tau I had my bulk of my army in another deployment zone before and they was on foot.

For example I won games like scouring with outflanking pathfinders which take my opponent off guard a lot of times.

I would say my weakness is going against armies I haven't played in awhile like Necrons. For example this Necron player beat me and the second time I played him I did much better due to forgetting simple things like necrons do not have ap weapons and I really didn't need to hug cover like I did the first game, game one I sat back and shoot. Game two I pushed up the middle hard with my riptides with my kroot right behind them getting cover and ready for the counter assault.

I try to make a unit work before I just give up on them. Flamers is a good example. If x models wasn't so expensive I would still run with them. I have used them several times and found the upgrade character to be rather good with the unit, also flamers still do some damage against a lot of models, not as good as they were..

I mean for example you got to respect that strenght 5 ap 2 weaponized flamer.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

You'll hear no complaints from me on that. when i can test a list that is exactly what i do. for me a fun list is a competetive list but my idea of competetive still has a place for things like honor guard or shooty termies or atleast it did with the last codex i have yet to use the new marine book. so that will be seen im sure i will still use termies i mean i better... just ordered forgeworld cat's to use as a command squad so i damn well better like termies in the new book lol.

But as i said and you've mentioned before you have to get in games with the list and games with a unit before you really make a decision on it. And i am Comfortable enough saying that there is a growing percentage of players who just look at what won the last tournament and that is all they play and to them everything else sucks. That to me is a huge failing in the community as a whole. Now im not so doe eyed that i don't understand some units just well they suck. thats the nicest thing you can say about them their just poorly though up and have no real place in the army. But i do believe that alot of the units in most codocies have a place it just depends on which list you use them in.

I know for an entire 3 month campaign the orks dominated against the guard after a few battles with some new units my friend threw in the towel said that the units were garbage then i started to use them and his opinion of them quickly changed. for me i try and use most units as long as they fit into certian categories 1 does this unit help my army 2 is the model good ( i am a hobbiest before i am a gamer so if the model is ugly i will no use it.. yes i have heldrakes i hate the models so i had to convert them) As long as a model fits into those categories then i will give them a shot.

[Cactus]

I'm of both minds of this topic. I look at net lists and see what other generals are doing with their models and how they are playing. Sometimes I take ideas, sometimes I don't. I don't always follow the meta of the game, like the new love of plasma guns, but sometimes I read some great tips that has helped my game.

Often though, I still field unpopular units because I love the models or the paint job I slapped on. I also think my love of theme lists is more enjoyable to me than winning. The reaction of my opponent when he sees nothing but night goblins and squigs or 7 dreads in drop pods gives me more satisfaction that chalking up a 'W.'

[chicop76]

Actually playing models no one uses is a good strategy as well since no one knows how to really deal with those models.