Public response to The 19th Hole - Blood Angels - Codicers Arm

[Irdion]

Now call me a pain, but there comes a point when a threshold is irredeemably crossed and I get a tad incensed. That day, ladies and gentlemen of BoLS, is today.

I love this site to high heaven, I believe the writers do a fantastic job of bringing out various aspects of the hobby with new and engaging articles on the myriad aspects of the hobby through their own writing and that of guest writers. If I need advice for most anything, I turn to BoLS, because by and large the community and writers are fantastic people.

But here is where I have my one complaint. Every instance where we speak of list building is, almost by nature now, a discussion of the competitive aspects built into the list. While there have been fantastic discussion points addressed in articles concerning the duality of casual versus competitive, it seems that a casual player's voice is absent from the writing staff entirely, most notably by the most recent article I address in the title above. If this is the definition of a 'fun' competitive list, I distinctly fail to see any level of perspective (likely as a direct result of the local meta game for this Austin Crew). I qualify this statement by saying there is nothing wrong with building competitive lists, merely that there is a built in level of hypocrisy by calling a competitive list anything but.

As an example, rather than simply running my mouth off of (or fingers, however you want to take it), I have produced a counter article running off the fluff basis of the Blood Angels as true 'casual yet not a pushover' list.

Shepherds of the Fallen, 2000 Point Blood Angels

Reclusiarch (Jump Pack, Infernus Pistol)

Librarian (Jump Pack, Unleash Rage, The Sanguine Sword)

Chaplain (Jump Pack)

10xDeath Company (Lemartes, 2xPF, 2xInfernus Pistol, Jump Packs)

5x Tactical Squad (Rhino, Melta Bombs)

5x Tactical Squad (Rhino, Melta Bombs)

Death Company Dreadnought (Blood Talons, HF, Drop Pod w/ Locator Beacon)

10xAssault Squad (Meltagun, Lightning Claw, Infernus Pistol)

8xVanguard Veteran Squad (Jump Packs, 3x LC, 1xPF)

Now this is a pretty simple list concerned with finding an honorable end in battle for the Death Company, supervised by duly appointed ministers of the honor of the chapter. The Death Company Dreadnought is designed to hammer early into enemy lines, with the Vanguard Veterans (with attached Librarian and Chaplain) following the Locator Beacon signal to hopefully pull off a Heroic Intervention. Granted, many players will be canny enough to ignore the significant threat long enough to mess with future plans, but if your opponent is caught off guard the threat they pose is considerable. This allows one to bring in the other assault elements either by running them upfield or simply bringing them in ala Descent of Angels, using the death Company as a shield for your advancing forces. The two small Tactical Squads, given the Fast nature of the Rhinos, can safely be held in reserve to rush up and nab objectives in the late game. One of the main advantages of this list is giving your opponent a minimal amount of utility for the melta-heavy metagame, with a minimum of vehicles for anti-tank weaponry. Given the fast moving and hard-hitting nature of the Blood Angels as an early game glass hammer, the objective is to hit the opponent's lines in a succession of hard-hitting waves.

[whitestar333]

My concern is that 'The 19th Hole' is just going to turn into another one of Goatboy's newest-codex-turned-goat-'themed' blog entries. What if 'The 19th Hole' explores an older codex in order to make a list that is effective (notice how I hate the term 'competitive') and fun. What ever happened to the fun themed lists?
Some candidates:
Tau - Farsight Cadre or 'Space Pope' list
Close Combat Necrons
Witchhunters Freakshow List
Eldar - Alaitoc, Biel Tan, Iyanden, Ulthwe
Chaos Marines - Thousand Sons, Red Corsairs, Fabius Bile
Chaos Daemons - Mono-god armies (without special characters)
Dark Angels - Ravenwing

There are so many possible fun and themed lists out there that would be great to have them see the light of day just for the sake of getting people excited about play the game for once. I have tons of lists made up that might not be deemed competitive, but at least they would be fun to play. I would like to see more artciles on BoLS that are NOT based on the flavor of the week. There's already a lot of discussion in game stores about new codexes, our greater community needs more love for the older armies out there and a salute to all those who play hard with their favorite armies - despite power level.

Here's an Iyanden list for 2000 points that is build around the theme of the craftworld:
HQ: Yriel of Iyanden - 155
HQ: Eldrad Ulthran - 210

Elite: 5 Fire Dragons - Exarch w/ Tankhunters - 123

Troops: 10 Guardians - Warlock w/ Embolden - Scatter Laser - 125
Troops: 15 Guardians - Warlock w/ Embolden - Missile Launcher - 170
Troops: 10 Wraithguard - Spiritseer w/Enhance - 396
Troops: 10 Wraithguard - Spiritseer w/ Enhance - 396

Heavy: Falcon - Spirit Stones, Holo-Fields, Shuriken Cannon - 165
Heavy: Wraithlord - Wraithsword, Brightlance, 2x Flamers - 140
Heavy: Wraithlord - Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, 120

[Irdion]

This is my point exactly! I used Blood Angels because it was the topic at hand, but there are numerous instances of great themed lists that never see the light of day because of net-listing.

The examples you bring forth are great examples of theme armies, to which things like Radical Inquisition and other such sleeping gems are a part. The depth of the game is not just crushing the bejeesus out of your opponent. Honestly my favorite game I've ever played was with my vanilla Ultramarines versus a Tyranid player where I played the 1st Company versus his scuttling hoard. True to fluff, I got butchered to a man, but my lone Captain fought like the devil himself, taking down two Carnifexes and a hoard of Gaunts before being finished off by the Hive Tyrant commander. Last stand indeed :)

[Zoa]

Irdion I spend about two weeks with the BA codex trying to write 'casual' lists with it. Every one of them was more powerful than that one but still couldn't win a game against any of my regular opponents (Orks, Chaos SM and IG). That list is a complete pushover at 2000pts, no offense.

There is a reason the point totals add up the way they do in the BA codex, why so many units cost 175pts and 230pts. Trust me when I say the list was meant to be played in specific combination of units and outside of those synergies many units are not worth their points, especially against horde opponents (which most of mine are).

[Dingareth]

If you guys want to play with your toy soldiers by talking to them and making up stories about them, that's fine. All I ask is that you leave me and my friends alone both on the internet and online while we try to top each other, because the chalenge is fun.

The reason it's a fun competitive list is because unlike his "leafblower," which was apparently so godly damn good it wasn't a chalenge anymore, this list isn't over the top, and as such should provide a chalenge to him. And by over the top, I mean it doesn't look that good at all.

For the TL/DR crowd, grow a pair and leave us alone. If that's how he wants to use the army, great. You don't have to play him.

[Irdion]

Irdion I spend about two weeks with the BA codex trying to write 'casual' lists with it. Every one of them was more powerful than that one but still couldn't win a game against any of my regular opponents (Orks, Chaos SM and IG). That list is a complete pushover at 2000pts, no offense.

There is a reason the point totals add up the way they do in the BA codex, why so many units cost 175pts and 230pts. Trust me when I say the list was meant to be played in specific combination of units and outside of those synergies many units are not worth their points, especially against horde opponents (which most of mine are).

As an IG player, I can understand your frustration playing with BA. The majority of my BA opponents have been blatant idiots, whose tactical forbearance has been "look at my awesome units I can run into your face"! Naturally, Leman Russ Demolishers and Executioners work just as well against red marines as blue marines.

And for the record, no codex is designed to be played in specific combinations. If it were, there would have very strict organizational doctrines ala Flames of War. The only restriction is your style of thinking, and what roles you designate your units to accomplish on the tabletop.

My point is simply that casual does not mean play like a flaming moron. The list I threw up has about a 50/50 win percentage when playing with it, as most people have come to expect the second turn make or break here at my LGS when playing a BA opponent. The succession of waves tends to surprise people, and gives them no real worthwhile targets for their heavy anti-vehicular weaponry. Say what you will, but thinking about how to utilize the tools in your army is significantly more important than the list itself.

[Irdion]

If you guys want to play with your toy soldiers by talking to them and making up stories about them, that's fine. All I ask is that you leave me and my friends alone both on the internet and online while we try to top each other, because the chalenge is fun.

The reason it's a fun competitive list is because unlike his "leafblower," which was apparently so godly damn good it wasn't a chalenge anymore, this list isn't over the top, and as such should provide a chalenge to him. And by over the top, I mean it doesn't look that good at all.

For the TL/DR crowd, grow a pair and leave us alone. If that's how he wants to use the army, great. You don't have to play him.

Did you see me mention anywhere that I would like the competitive analysis sections to disappear? I realize players like yourself have different viewpoints on what constitutes the fun of the game, and begrudge you nothing on having full in depth discussions about the marginal utility of various units in list construction. The Leafblower was a piece of art for the competitive mindset, and I don't believe it ruined things for the competitive environment at all. In contrast, it made everyone else step up their game to combat the new threat.

My statement is simply that I would like to see additional content tailored to casual players, with more emphasis on thematic construction and tactics.

And for the sake of all that is holy, at least spell challenge correctly. You look like a bleeding moron.

[MVBrandt]

Uh, he didn't post all that competitive a list ...

[Nikephoros]

1. His list isn't really that competitive. It looks like a mish-mash of ideas, and isn't really what I would consider hyper-optimized. I'm not sure what people are freaking out about.

2. No one posts fluff or fun lists for critique because those lists need no critique. If I posted a list saying "here is my non-competitive totally for fun list with trash units and baffling war gear loadouts" what advice would I be soliciting? Would I be asking people to help make my list worse? Would I be asking how to make it more in line with the fluff? Can you imagine the inanity of such an article? "Only flaw in your all Eldar Guardian list is that your squads should be all 13 bodies to be in line with ____ fluff." That would be irredeemably pedantic.

[MVBrandt]

1. His list isn't really that competitive. It looks like a mish-mash of ideas, and isn't really what I would consider hyper-optimized. I'm not sure what people are freaking out about.

2. No one posts fluff or fun lists for critique because those lists need no critique. If I posted a list saying "here is my non-competitive totally for fun list with trash units and baffling war gear loadouts" what advice would I be soliciting? Would I be asking people to help make my list worse? Would I be asking how to make it more in line with the fluff? Can you imagine the inanity of such an article? "Only flaw in your all Eldar Guardian list is that your squads should be all 13 bodies to be in line with ____ fluff." That would be irredeemably pedantic.

That.

[whitestar333]

My point wasn't that he posted a competitive list, nor is it my complaint that competitive lists are posted. Please read what I actually wrote:


My concern is that 'The 19th Hole' is just going to turn into another one of Goatboy's newest-codex-turned-goat-'themed' blog entries. What if 'The 19th Hole' explores an older codex in order to make a list that is effective (notice how I hate the term 'competitive') and fun.

I apologize if I did not make it clearer, but I'd like to see lists for OLDER codexes. I'd like to see BoLS provide more coverage of the whole hobby, not just what's new. If I want to read up on the newest lists (competitive or not) I can scan the internets quickly and find the info. What about some love and exposure for the old stuff? GW gives the Imperium so much love as it is, why not fill the niche?

I understand there are a lot of "competitive" players out there, but we need more blog entries about more obscure themed lists that can be fun, different, and effective. My friend put it best when he said "I'm just so bored of space marine armies. But what else is there to play?" This ignorance is not his fault, but once he was reminded that there ARE other armies out there with very different styles of play, he got excited about the game once again. Isn't that what we're all about? Being excited and having fun?

For the record, I hate the term "competitive" because it has so much baggage attached to it now. I would play what would you might call "competitively," I like winning! However, I am a committed xenos player and I think that we need some love here, especially lately, with fresh ideas. The metagame changes every new codex, and it'd be nice to hear new ideas about how the Tau can be more effective against the newest codex, or perhaps the Eldar finding a way of winning games by beating the snot out of their opponents. I think what we all strive for is "effectiveness" for our army or particular list build, and I was hoping that 'The 19th Hole' could fill that void in the community.

[whitestar333]

2. No one posts fluff or fun lists for critique because those lists need no critique. If I posted a list saying "here is my non-competitive totally for fun list with trash units and baffling war gear loadouts" what advice would I be soliciting? Would I be asking people to help make my list worse? Would I be asking how to make it more in line with the fluff? Can you imagine the inanity of such an article? "Only flaw in your all Eldar Guardian list is that your squads should be all 13 bodies to be in line with ____ fluff." That would be irredeemably pedantic.

Again, I don't think of themed armies as having anything to do with fluff. Perhaps there isn't any fluff listed for a particular themed army, but you want to create one. Themes can be much broader than 'fluff-based', and I actually hate using 'fluff' to justify an army. Make a list your own.

Two Examples:
1) Ork Freeboter army - largely based on the Bad Moonz but focusing more on units like Flash Gitz (and Kaptin Badrukk!), Lootas, and all kinds of Battlewagons (with Kannons of course!) and Trukks kitted out with boarding planks. Competitive, fun, and actually quite effective (see: 'competitive')
2) Imperial Guard Zombie Hunters - In the rulebook there's an entry (in the timeline) about an imperial world being infected with a zombie plague and the planet is quarantined. Veterans kitted out with flamers, grenade launchers, and shotguns riding heavily reinforced trucks or broken down tanks (use Chimeras for rules). You can fill any kind of zombie movie archetype with Marbo, Penal Legion, Harker, Pask, etc.

My case here is that I'd love to see more of these types of creative themes. Even Goatboy's armies are an example of this, but I don't think that I'm the only person who rolled his/her eyes at the 'Goat Angels'.

[Darkwynn]

I knew using the golf reference that no body would get it :|

The article was called 19th hole for a reason...

its supposed to be a solid list but is also fun and not super crazy. You can adjust the list in ways to make it over the top and you can also adjust it ways to make it "softer" for some people. You the player are the one in control who can take these list and do something else with them. I am not forcing people to take them.

As for the other list we have done them before. The scout list for Space marines, Necrons, Chaos Noise Marines, people flip out and go crazy on them. Your in a position where its a Lose/ Lose.

[Nikephoros]

1) Ork Freeboter army - largely based on the Bad Moonz but focusing more on units like Flash Gitz (and Kaptin Badrukk!), Lootas, and all kinds of Battlewagons (with Kannons of course!) and Trukks kitted out with boarding planks. Competitive, fun, and actually quite effective (see: 'competitive')
2) Imperial Guard Zombie Hunters - In the rulebook there's an entry (in the timeline) about an imperial world being infected with a zombie plague and the planet is quarantined. Veterans kitted out with flamers, grenade launchers, and shotguns riding heavily reinforced trucks or broken down tanks (use Chimeras for rules). You can fill any kind of zombie movie archetype with Marbo, Penal Legion, Harker, Pask, etc.


The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."

That isn't an interesting dialogue, no one comes away from it having learned anything.

A second problem is no one will read an article about, say, a flash gitz list and run out and spend $500+ to make that army. So if no one is actually PLAYING these themed lists, whats the point?

To sum it up, posting fluff or fun lists is sorta like critiquing a child's artwork. People can't be critical of it, they just say "its nice, good job" and move along.

[Irdion]

I knew using the golf reference that no body would get it :|

The article was called 19th hole for a reason...

its supposed to be a solid list but is also fun and not super crazy. You can adjust the list in ways to make it over the top and you can also adjust it ways to make it "softer" for some people. You the player are the one in control who can take these list and do something else with them. I am not forcing people to take them.

As for the other list we have done them before. The scout list for Space marines, Necrons, Chaos Noise Marines, people flip out and go crazy on them. Your in a position where its a Lose/ Lose.

I can understand your viewpoint, and let it be said that I think you write fantastic articles for the competitive metagame. I have no true complaint against you personally, merely the broader trend of BoLS. You are very correct in saying that the list is not super crazy, especially compared to various top tier lists, but it is very hard to distinguish it as a friendly game list due to the combination of the BA two top strengths into a very hard nut to crack for a non-similarly tiered listing.

My point was that the articles like the Space Marine scout list, the Necron tactica articles, and the Chaos Noise Marine article were fantastic, but they also come from either guest writers or one-shots. I merely was voicing my thought in that there should be a bit of an examination for the evolving game as a whole, rather than the tournament dynamic. Players are shaped by their local metagame, and the Auston Crew is very much so a 'ard group. The casual dynamic goes unexplored due to this mindset, and it was to that I voiced my disappointment.

[BuFFo]

As for the other list we have done them before. The scout list for Space marines, Necrons, Chaos Noise Marines, people flip out and go crazy on them. Your in a position where its a Lose/ Lose.

This.

As much as I personally whine about how I want BoLs to go back to it's pre goatboy days, I know it won't happen. Times are a changing.

Darkwynn, keep on doing whatchya is doin', dude!

[Irdion]

The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."

That isn't an interesting dialogue, no one comes away from it having learned anything.

A second problem is no one will read an article about, say, a flash gitz list and run out and spend $500+ to make that army. So if no one is actually PLAYING these themed lists, whats the point?

To sum it up, posting fluff or fun lists is sorta like critiquing a child's artwork. People can't be critical of it, they just say "its nice, good job" and move along.

I believe your broad over-generalization to be broadly misinformed. You seem to equate casual gaming with a lack of competitive spirit for the game itself. No one plays the game in order to lose, unless of course they have a somewhat disturbing masochistic streak. People play the game to win, and the way in which the competitive environment is arranged is a large part in that. There is a place for games in which both players try to eke out the maximum amount of marginal utility from their lists, as well as a place for lists which incorporate a broader theme that require a more tactical mindset to play and win with. Freebooterz are a brilliant example of this, being by and large a 'ranged' Ork army. This plays very differently from a traditional Ork Waagh, and requires an entirely different way of tactically appraising the field.

In direct contrast to your point, I would contest that an article focusing on the ins and outs of playing a Freebooterz list, with accompanying tactics for play strategies would be a hotly contested issue, with players weighing in on the utility of Flash Gitz versus Lootaz, the amount of the list dedicated to vehicles, and how much competitive utility can be given up for the sake of the theme while still creating a fun ye challenging game for the opponent (given that nobody enjoys winning a game that poses no challenge).

How to make it more competitive isn't the only talking point. List building will only take you so far. More important than anything else is the general behind the army, as I nigh guarantee Darkwynn would outperform me in running the Leafblower every time.

[Melissia]

notice how I hate the term 'competitive'
Yes I did. I also noticed that your hatred for that term is stupid.

Competitive means, simply, "able to compete", IE on equal terms with other strong armies and able to win against them. An effective army IS a competitive army, no matter how much you dislike the term. A competitive players is no more likely to be a retard than a casual player, as I've learned from the various "casual" players who've gone to the lounge whining about competitive players in the past few months.

I don't even consider myself a competitive player (I balance out fluff and competitiveness, because I'm not silly enough to think they're mutually exclusive) and it annoys me.,

[Irdion]

Yes I did. I also noticed that your hatred for that term is stupid.

Competitive means, simply, "able to compete", IE on equal terms with other strong armies and able to win against them. An effective army IS a competitive army, no matter how much you dislike the term. A competitive players is no more likely to be a retard than a casual player, as I've learned from the various "casual" players who've gone to the lounge whining about competitive players in the past few months.

I don't even consider myself a competitive player (I balance out fluff and competitiveness, because I'm not silly enough to think they're mutually exclusive) and it annoys me.,

True, although the socially accepted context of competitive in these lovely discussion boards is another matter entirely. My definition of casual is remarkably similar to your playstyle, as I feel it to be the playstyle most suited to my impressions of fun.

And I will definitely not disagree in saying that stupidity is restricted to one camp or another. Stupidity knows no lone creed.

[Nikephoros]

edit: delete

[ColCorbane]

I don't think it's possible for the Bols guys to write a fun list, and I don't mean that as an insult in any way. Fun is a subjective thing, the Bols guys play ubber competitively so even their fun lists are competitive. That's the environment they're used to.

My gaming club plays a lot of narrative games, battles between unequal armies based on a storyline are just as common as standard games. For us, these are fun games, when you know there's no doubt that you're going to lose because that's the way the game is setup from the start, then all you can do is enjoy the ride and have some fun, hell, if you do survive, it's been an outstanding game.

The point I'm trying to make is that what's fun is down to the person playing, perhaps Bols should do a FromTheWarp collaborative style post and gather as many different perspectives on what's a fun game and then in future, actually state which perspective they're writing from.

Hell, even a bio of the regular writers and their take on the game would make a difference because you'd be able to put their posts in context. As I said before, I'm not bashing Bols, just highlighting the fact that this hobby is huge and has lots of different aspects from it and so the thoughts of a group of guys who are very similar in play styles and geographical location don't carry across to the entire hobby that well.

Out of interest, are there any writers who are British or play mainly non-competitively?

[Just_Me]

Out of interest, are there any writers who are British or play mainly non-competitively?

Well, I just started writing, and though I rarely get to play, when I do it is generally non-competitively, and my lists are generated from a purely fluff based perspective (I tend to make choices based on rule-of-cool over effectiveness). In fact my favorite army project is my ever changing radical Ordos Xenos Inquisition force, which includes (among other things) Kroot mercenaries from the old web pdf. It's never actually hit the board, but I kinda think it would get its collective butt kicked, not that this detracts in any way from how much fun I have building and tinkering with it. Also, no, I'm not British. :D

I do however think a writer bio series might be interesting, the community could generate questions, some general, and some geared for a specific person, and each writer could answer them. I tend to see a lot of people making generalizations about some of the writers, and assuming things about how they think or what their philosophies are, so it might be interesting to hear honest straightforward answers from their own lips (or finger tips as the case may be).

On the subject of the original question, I actually thought the list was an interesting little themed piece, showcasing the Blood Angels prominent psychic presence on the battlefield and love for jump assault troops (though I'd have stuck some Sanguinary Guard in there somehow, just so very cool...). I can understand the frustration with the "flavor of the month" feel to list building articles, but honestly everyone gets excited by the prospect of new possibilities, and I feel like this particular article doesn't deserve the rancor it's generated. And before we make blanket statements and judgments about what Darkwynn's new series of articles is supposed to be about, let's let him write more than one. ;)

[Polonius]

I think, as has been stated by many previous posters, that the reason there aren't columns showing how to construct thematic lists is that thematic lists are inherently personal. I mean, I could certainly share what I feel is a great IG infantry company, and all that shows is how I think my IG infantry company should be built.

Now, what would be genuinely interesting would be army lists for less subjective purposes. Things like ideal teaching lists, tournament ringer armies, demo armies, etc.

I think that instead of articles showing thematic army lists, I would like to see army features, showing interesting armies. So, for example, a players all jump wing Blood Angels, with pictures, fluff, and a sample army list or two. Or an all aspect Biel Tan sword wind. Or radical Demonhunters. Those would be neat.

[Irdion]

I think, as has been stated by many previous posters, that the reason there aren't columns showing how to construct thematic lists is that thematic lists are inherently personal. I mean, I could certainly share what I feel is a great IG infantry company, and all that shows is how I think my IG infantry company should be built.

Now, what would be genuinely interesting would be army lists for less subjective purposes. Things like ideal teaching lists, tournament ringer armies, demo armies, etc.

I think that instead of articles showing thematic army lists, I would like to see army features, showing interesting armies. So, for example, a players all jump wing Blood Angels, with pictures, fluff, and a sample army list or two. Or an all aspect Biel Tan sword wind. Or radical Demonhunters. Those would be neat.

This is the kind of thing I personally would love to see. In the same light, I love the articles along the lines of Better Know a Necron where tactical uses are all brought up and examined. Great stuff all around.

[whitestar333]

I think that instead of articles showing thematic army lists, I would like to see army features, showing interesting armies. So, for example, a players all jump wing Blood Angels, with pictures, fluff, and a sample army list or two. Or an all aspect Biel Tan sword wind. Or radical Demonhunters. Those would be neat.

Thank you. You said this much better than I did, and this is exactly the point I was trying to get at. For example, I forget who it was, but someone runs an IG army using Orks and all looted vehicles (I loved the looked "choppa" valkyrie). Armies like that get me excited and seem really cool.

For the record, I run a Freebooters army and I have a lot of fun with it. I run with Flash Gitz, Boyz in Trukks (with boarding planks of course), and even Tankbustaz. I throw in Deff Dreads and Killa Kanz for good measure too, and it does very well on the table (plus I had a blast modeling them). Also today I ran an Iyanden Ghost army and crushed a Chaos Marine player who was playing with a typically "competitive" list. How come we don't hear more about those tales of greatness?
Maybe the video battle reports are a better venue for these kinds of theme lists, I will admit, but I'd just like to see more exposure to the other armies out there that are lying on people's shelves collecting dust.

[Nabterayl]

I think, as has been stated by many previous posters, that the reason there aren't columns showing how to construct thematic lists is that thematic lists are inherently personal. I mean, I could certainly share what I feel is a great IG infantry company, and all that shows is how I think my IG infantry company should be built.

Now, what would be genuinely interesting would be army lists for less subjective purposes. Things like ideal teaching lists, tournament ringer armies, demo armies, etc.
You know, reading this thread, I wonder ... would people be interested in a kind of hybrid article? I'm thinking of something like this:
Part 1: Brief Presentation of Interesting Thematic Background
Part 2: How and Why the Background was Translated to a List
Part 3: How to Play with the List, Given Its Limitations
I think I might enjoy the occasional article like this, at least for some of the more extreme thematic lists I can think of. For instance, we know exactly what an infantry company of the 17th Tallarn Desert Raiders looks like, right down to the wargear: 1 captain, 7 lieutenants, 29 sergeants, 292 privates/corporals, 1 commissar, and 5 priests; equipped in total with 320 lasguns, 25 long las, 20 laspistols, 12 close combat weapons, 8 missile launchers, 6 mortars, 3 lascannons, 3 heavy bolters, 3 autocannons, 9 plasma guns, 8 grenade launchers, 8 flamers, 8 melta guns, 33 vox-casters, 5 medi-packs, and 1 company standard; supported by 3 recon Sentinels and 1 Samaritan. You could write an article on how to translate that exact unit into a codex-legal list, and then some tactical thoughts as to how to run it.

[warpcrafter]

Well, Irdion, my Orks were tabled by a list nearly identical to that a couple of weeks ago, and I held no grudge. I guess is just depends on the sort of player. I've also suffered losses due to failure to accomplish the mission objective where the opposing player was still pissed off because he didn't cause as many casualties as he believes he should have or I killed his favorite unit. Besides, Goatboy needs years of heavy-duty therapy or to get laid once in awhile, and everybody knows it except for him. I say don't worry so much and just enjoy the game.

[Melissia]

ColCobane's post blew my mind with either its stupidity or how poorly written it was if it wasn't stupid (I still can't decide which). So instead I present a few factoids:

1: "Fun" can mean competitive lists.
2: "Competitive" lists can be fun to play and design.
3: "Non-competitive" lists can be (and often are) boring.

People are too damned stuck (and stuck up) on whining about competitive lists. It's stupid and moronic and douchey and douchebaggy and idiotic and... dear Emperor it annoys the frak out of me.

[Madness]

Here's an Iyanden list for 2000 points that is build around the theme of the craftworld:

HQ: Eldrad Ulthran - 210Fail!

[Denzark]

ColCobane's post blew my mind with either its stupidity or how poorly written it was if it wasn't stupid (I still can't decide which). So instead I present a few factoids:

1: "Fun" can mean competitive lists.
2: "Competitive" lists can be fun to play and design.
3: "Non-competitive" lists can be (and often are) boring.

People are too damned stuck (and stuck up) on whining about competitive lists. It's stupid and moronic and douchey and douchebaggy and idiotic and... dear Emperor it annoys the frak out of me.


Fail!

I respectfully submit I found nothing stupid or particularly poorly written about the Colonel's post. There is something of the throwing of the frags in glass houses, to refer to something 'stupid' or 'poorly written' and use the worst of whining, teeny bopper kelly/jack osbourne language to critique said post. ('Douchey' - I would rather touch kittens in rude places than use such a word).

Madness. Try to put something more engaging than 'fail' - a washed up and tired old meme so overused its like a Hollywood rentboy's kak pipe. You have turned the fail back on yourself.

[Melissia]

You probably do that in your off time anyway Denzark :P

Hehe.

[Kahoolin]

The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."Yeah but how is that any different from "needs more blah to be more effective?" or "I'd drop these because they are not points efficient?"

Both are subjective judgements, it just that one set of judgements is based on theme and the other on effectiveness. There is nothing about judging and discussing a list based on thematic aspects that is any more subjective and pointless than judging a list on effectiveness. Both can be equally interesting if that's what you're interested in.

[gorepants]

The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."

That isn't an interesting dialogue, no one comes away from it having learned anything.

A second problem is no one will read an article about, say, a flash gitz list and run out and spend $500+ to make that army. So if no one is actually PLAYING these themed lists, whats the point?

To sum it up, posting fluff or fun lists is sorta like critiquing a child's artwork. People can't be critical of it, they just say "its nice, good job" and move along.

What if you switch it up a bit. A lot of list conversations are of the 'how to I make this more bad-arse?' variety. If you take the list as given, you can still discuss how do I use this possibly flawed list to its best advantage? What are its strengths and weaknesses? That sort of discussion is more useful in context, so you might need to add in an opposing army.

[Nikephoros]

Yeah but how is that any different from "needs more blah to be more effective?" or "I'd drop these because they are not points efficient?"

Both are subjective judgements, it just that one set of judgements is based on theme and the other on effectiveness. There is nothing about judging and discussing a list based on thematic aspects that is any more subjective and pointless than judging a list on effectiveness. Both can be equally interesting if that's what you're interested in.

Because unlike "fun," there is an objective truth for "better competitive" that can be discovered. Debating fun is beating your head into a wall talking about a quality that is totally subjective, and thus not worth arguing about. Debating whether a variation of a list will be more capable of winning a tournament than another variation is a very real thing that can be resolved through debate.

[Nikephoros]

What if you switch it up a bit. A lot of list conversations are of the 'how to I make this more bad-arse?' variety. If you take the list as given, you can still discuss how do I use this possibly flawed list to its best advantage? What are its strengths and weaknesses? That sort of discussion is more useful in context, so you might need to add in an opposing army.

Again, if no one is actually playing these lists, what is the point?

[Kahoolin]

Because unlike "fun," there is an objective truth for "better competitive" that can be discovered. Debating fun is beating your head into a wall talking about a quality that is totally subjective, and thus not worth arguing about. Debating whether a variation of a list will be more capable of winning a tournament than another variation is a very real thing that can be resolved through debate.You don't understand what I'm saying. First of all, not every discussion is a debate. Secondly, just because something can't be resolved objectively one way or the other doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about. Do you ever discuss music with people? Movies? You will have reasons why you like or dislike something, and so will they, and none of them are objective. You can still discuss and debate.

And if the discussion is about how to make a list more accurate to the fluff, that can definitely be debated using sources, just like any historical discussion. And I defy you to give me one reason why a debate over the fluff for our toy soldiers is somehow more useful than a debate over how to use them effectively.

[Nikephoros]

And I defy you to give me one reason why a debate over the fluff for our toy soldiers is somehow more useful than a debate over how to use them effectively.

Because everyone who plays the game tries to use their models effectively, but only some of the people who play care about whether the the Old Ones did such and such. Therefore, a discussion about rules, tactics and strategy is always going to have a wider appeal than one about black library novels.

[gorepants]

Again, if no one is actually playing these lists, what is the point?

Well, yeah, if no one was playing them then there is no point, but people are (see Col Corbane's post). It's just a different way of playing the game - it says that list building optimisation isn't as important to me. This doesn't mean that you give up the idea of making competive lists (though you might for a story oriented campaign), or that you don't want to win. You're just shifting the emphasis in why you are choosing certain units, and if you're choosing sub-optimal units (or for some players a sub optimal army!), it's good to discuss how to use them best since they'll be harder to use.

And that's without the whole fluff aspect, though I think any depth of dsicusion ofthe fluffiness of an army is better suited to a forum than a blog post since you get a better to-and-fro for what is a lot less analytic. This is again, not a criticism of either camp.


The point I'm trying to make is that what's fun is down to the person playing, perhaps Bols should do a FromTheWarp collaborative style post and gather as many different perspectives on what's a fun game and then in future, actually state which perspective they're writing from.

Sums up nicely that it is just a different way of looking at it. It neither validates, nor invalidates list building critiques.

[ColCorbane]

ColCobane's post blew my mind with either its stupidity or how poorly written it was if it wasn't stupid (I still can't decide which). So instead I present a few factoids:

1: "Fun" can mean competitive lists.
2: "Competitive" lists can be fun to play and design.
3: "Non-competitive" lists can be (and often are) boring.

People are too damned stuck (and stuck up) on whining about competitive lists. It's stupid and moronic and douchey and douchebaggy and idiotic and... dear Emperor it annoys the frak out of me.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting on forums .... :confused:

Melissia - you've obviously completely missed the point of my post. Once again, the point I was making is that what's fun is subjective. That means it's down to the person who's playing to decide what's fun about it. The Bols guys idea of fun is different to mine, and that's fine, I'm not whining about their lists, I don't have to play them, I'm just highlighting that people have different ideas about what's 'fun'.

With regards to my later comments regarding bios, since the articles are the subjective opinions of the writer, it makes sense that a bit of bio on the writer would help to understand the context on the article. For example, if the writer was a highly competitive player who plays in a highly competitive group, it stands to reason that their idea of a fun list would still be competitive. Without having the bio of the writer, it's difficult to understand why a competitive list would be classed as a fun list especially for someone who plays at the narrative end of the gaming spectrum.

The comment regarding other non competitive writers was simply to find out if there was any or whether the entire writing staff came from the same competitive culture.

On your factoids, which arn't facts, they're your subjective opinions, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine, just don't ask me to.

[whitestar333]

One more [quick] thing to add is that there's already a lot of serious discussion on this site and in the blog articles about building army lists which will kick the snot out of other armies on the table. I'm not suggesting that we remove said discussion, but instead provide the alternative for those of us who sometimes like the challenge of taking an old list and making it new and refreshing again. Why not present both perspectives? I'm just saying there is a section of the community that is underrepresented at this point and I don't see what's so wrong about having both.

[Nabterayl]

If you take the list as given, you can still discuss how do I use this possibly flawed list to its best advantage? What are its strengths and weaknesses? That sort of discussion is more useful in context, so you might need to add in an opposing army.
I daresay there aren't enough of this sort of article. Too often discussions of 40K "tactics" are discussions of how to make sure your list has a unit to cover every eventuality, or how to cover every eventuality in proportion to the author's metagame's current threat-makeup. That isn't tactics, and it certainly isn't teaching tactics. You can't teach people how to grapple systematically with tactical problems if your advice is always, "Get better tools for the job."

[Denzark]

You probably do that in your off time anyway Denzark :P

Hehe.

And twice on Wednesdays... haha

[Kahoolin]

Because everyone who plays the game tries to use their models effectively, but only some of the people who play care about whether the the Old Ones did such and such. Therefore, a discussion about rules, tactics and strategy is always going to have a wider appeal than one about black library novels.Well OK, I have two responses to that.

1: Everyone may be interested in being effective, but not everyone is interested in being optimized for victory. In fact I'd say hardly anyone is, statistically.

2: If majority interest is the basis on which articles should be presented, and IF you are right that more people are interested in listhammer, then all that means is that there should be proportionally more listhammer than fluff list discussion, not zero fluff list discussion. Some (as opposed to zero) is what the OP is requesting anyway.

Unless you think we should all suffer the tyranny of the majority. In which case I hope you enjoy your eternity of watching Bollywood films ;)

[addamsfamily36]

Madness. Try to put something more engaging than 'fail' - a washed up and tired old meme so overused its like a Hollywood rentboy's kak pipe. You have turned the fail back on yourself.

Oh I don't know, "Fail" sums up Eldrad being in an iyanden army quite nicely lol.

[addamsfamily36]

1: Everyone may be interested in being effective, but not everyone is interested in being optimized for victory. In fact I'd say hardly anyone is, statistically.

Totally agree. from my experiences from various GW stores (not all i appreciate that it differs across the UK stores and the rest of the world), but most people i meet really enjoy, the army background, the history, the modeling, the painting etc its all they talk about. With new codex releases there's always a buzz of new lists being thrown about, and what's the beardiest thing in the codex, but thats all part of the fun.

What i don't see is competitive list writing, maybe from one or two but not from the majority. So it amazes me too, that on the forums, there is a lack of talk about other aspects of the game. the most popular threads seem to be rules related (which just escalate into arguments) or the new big thing on the block tournament wise.

I think there has been a bit of a back lash on this particular thread thats been a bit unessacary. It was a call out to get people talking about different areas of the game, instead its been more of an attack at the poster in some cases.

I don't think the use of the "public response to ..... etc" was a good choice, as the guy writing that article was doing something for the community, but i agree with the overall shout out for more articles/threads on projects,themes,history etc.

[Kahoolin]

Oh I don't know, "Fail" sums up Eldrad being in an iyanden army quite nicely lol."He's not Eldrad, he's Iyanden's greatest farseer who uh. . . Happens to have very similar powers to Eldrad? And he looks kind of like him too, except he's yellow."

[addamsfamily36]

except he's yellow."

:Dhahaha brilliant. In my head i have a picture of a very summery looking eldrad!:D

Plus yeh i got no problem with using the rules for him, say changing his name etc, but reading the list its like heres an iyanden army, prince, Eldrad , 10 wraithg.....SAY WHAT ? ELDRAD? IS HE LOST? why does he look like big bird?:D

[DarkLink]

Well, Eldrad's dead, right? So it's obviously not him:rolleyes:.

[addamsfamily36]

Well, Eldrad's dead, right? So it's obviously not him.

oh i dunno, the iyanden, are pretty nifty at bringing back dead warriors for their cause :D

[Bigred]

Don't you guys worry,

The 19th hole will be exploring all the codices in the game, including the ancient ones. Darkwynn just started with the Blood Angels as they are the topic of the month. You will be seeing him try out a lot of interesing lists in therej that he things could be strong, without being over the top spammy.

[whitestar333]

Don't you guys worry,

The 19th hole will be exploring all the codices in the game, including the ancient ones. Darkwynn just started with the Blood Angels as they are the topic of the month. You will be seeing him try out a lot of interesing lists in therej that he things could be strong, without being over the top spammy.

Hooray! That's all I wanted :-)

Oh and to all the Eldrad-in-my-list haters - my point was to make an effective list while being roughly themed. Eldrad died stuck in the warp and now supposedly returns to help other Eldar. What is preventing him from helping Iyanden? Plus, he's extremely effective (my whole point) as a character and provides much needed protection for very expensive wraithguard (you need to keep both squads fortuned for a chance of survival). I guess you could take a farseer instead, but I wanted to have the effectiveness needed while still being able to take Yriel.

I am amused, however, that the kind of discussion about one of my themed lists is exactly what occurred when someone said you can't discuss themed lists :-P

[Madness]

Supposedly Eldrad was the greater farseer even, like seriously ever, so I'm not sure that every craftworld has a clone in their pocket. Does it mean you can't field a biel-tan farseer and use eldrad rules? Of course you can, but please, don't say it's a fluffy list. That's just bullfluff.

[Irdion]

Well OK, I have two responses to that.

1: Everyone may be interested in being effective, but not everyone is interested in being optimized for victory. In fact I'd say hardly anyone is, statistically.

2: If majority interest is the basis on which articles should be presented, and IF you are right that more people are interested in listhammer, then all that means is that there should be proportionally more listhammer than fluff list discussion, not zero fluff list discussion. Some (as opposed to zero) is what the OP is requesting anyway.

Unless you think we should all suffer the tyranny of the majority. In which case I hope you enjoy your eternity of watching Bollywood films ;)

Thank you for actually bothering to read and interpret my original post, because this is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. There is no need to get rid of the competitive stuff, as a large number of people distinctly enjoy it, just the addition of some additional content.

[addamsfamily36]

Oh and to all the Eldrad-in-my-list haters - my point was to make an effective list while being roughly themed.

Not a hater, i understand why he is there, But as a themed Iyanden army? I play Ulthwe and i wouldn't dream of taking The prince of iyanden, even if i was just using his rules as a base for my own character. but thats just a personal choice.

As for him being dead or alive? I believe he's stuck in an eternal fight against a demon possessed black fortress(or similar construct).

But yeh you can just field him before this event happened so i have no problem with that.

[DarkLink]

Well OK, I have two responses to that.

1: Everyone may be interested in being effective, but not everyone is interested in being optimized for victory. In fact I'd say hardly anyone is, statistically.

2: If majority interest is the basis on which articles should be presented, and IF you are right that more people are interested in listhammer, then all that means is that there should be proportionally more listhammer than fluff list discussion, not zero fluff list discussion. Some (as opposed to zero) is what the OP is requesting anyway.

Unless you think we should all suffer the tyranny of the majority. In which case I hope you enjoy your eternity of watching Bollywood films ;)

I will respond with the following: Bols, and any other blogging group, may write whatever articles they want, whenever they want, about whatever they want. You and I have no say. We can't tell them what they "should" be writing about.

All we can do is give them positive or negative feedback, or even ignore the article. If someone posts an article and no one shows interest, they'll probably write different articles. But if someone writes an article which starts an argument on the forums, they'll probably keep writing, because that's the type of article that gets attention.

[Kahoolin]

I will respond with the following: Bols, and any other blogging group, may write whatever articles they want, whenever they want, about whatever they want. You and I have no say. We can't tell them what they "should" be writing about.Well, we can. People do every day. . .

But I wasn't. In fact I posted a comment on Goatboy's Balanced List to the effect that BoLS should write whatever they like rather than change in response to public opinion. After all, that's how they got so popular in the first place.

When it all comes down to it, the BoLS guys seem to be doing this for fun and the love of the game. They aren't a business and they don't work for Games Workshop, so they aren't even slaves to the almighty dollar. It's just some guys' blog, with all that that entails.

EDIT: And one of the things that a blog entails is nosy commentators telling you your business!

[DarkLink]

Heck, look at the foot eldar article they posted. Good article, but got a ton of hate from certain... individuals. About whom I will restrain myself from making further comments.

And you know what? Same guy just kept on writing. And now, people seem to really like his articles. Especially that 1984 one. Glad to see that the writer is doing well after moving out of our gaming group (he's a great guy).

[Grabula]

I'm mostly just curious when BoLs became All Blood Angels Al the time lol. I mean, I realize it's the biggest, latest Codex to come out but did all the writers seriously drop what they were doing to pick up BA armies?

[Melissia]

I wonder if Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Necrons will get the same attention for the same amount of time when they're released?

I'd be glad to write a first impression article of a Sisters codex.

[eldargal]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start with the latest codex out ifyou start up a new column on the various codices. Equalliy it would make sense to start with the oldest, any other choice is probably arbitrary. Except perhaps alphabetic...




I'm mostly just curious when BoLs became All Blood Angels Al the time lol. I mean, I realize it's the biggest, latest Codex to come out but did all the writers seriously drop what they were doing to pick up BA armies?

[DarkLink]

I'm mostly just curious when BoLs became All Blood Angels Al the time lol. I mean, I realize it's the biggest, latest Codex to come out but did all the writers seriously drop what they were doing to pick up BA armies?

They did the same thing with SWs. In fact, like half their articles were about Thunderwolf Cavalry specifically for a few months. It was kinda funny. "First impression of TWolf Cavalry". "Second Impression of TWolf Cavalry." "TWolf Cavalry are awesome." "Lords attached to TWolf Cavalry". "Hammer units: TWolf Cavalry." And so on and so forth.


I wonder if Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Necrons will get the same attention for the same amount of time when they're released?

I'd be glad to write a first impression article of a Sisters codex.

I'd like to do the same with GKs, if I ever got around to doing so. I tend to be kinda lazy about that sort of thing. Otherwise I probably would have already written an article or two about GKs.

[Duke]

I believe that just like any other News source BoLS attempts to write about what is new and interesting... It isn't called "Bell of Lost Souls: War-gaming Olds." Why doesn't CNN stop talking about the oil spill and do a piece on how George Washington's horse gets tired after a fight? Cause it is old! Thats why, lol. News is New.

Be assured that whenever another codex comes out it will get all the love and people will complain that there aren't any more Blood Angels articles (Well I will anyhow.)

Duke

[Melissia]

Dunno, I don't recall Tyranids getting as much attention as the Marine forces did, both Wolves and Blood Angels.

[Commissar Lewis]

The Tyranids did get attention on the forums, Mel. Remember the fiasco that was the Doom discussions?

Man, I haven't seen that many angry people since... well, I've seen that occasion many times in my life.

But yeah, they did get markedly less articles than the SW or BA.

[Melissia]

I wasn't talking about the forums anyway, but the BoLS Blog.

[Commissar Lewis]

Ah, my bad then. But yeah, there be too much Marine-talk around these parts, blog-wise.

[Duke]

We can solve this fairly easily... Someone look at how many articles were written on each dex.

Duke

[Sir Biscuit]

It's just about impossible to do that, as a lot of articles that come up with a specific army in the search have little to do with that army. Unless someone wants to look through 9 months of posts... I know I don't.

However, Google search of the site has an interesting tale to tell...
'Nids (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22tyranids%22+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&btnG=Search&cts=1273036791372&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
Wolves (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Space+Wolves%22+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&btnG=Search&cts=1273036797733&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
BA (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22blood+angels%22+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&btnG=Search&cts=1273036794484&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

That's the total number of hits for BoLS, not including stuff from the lounge.

Looking at this, seems to me like 'nids got a lot of coverage. I sure remember them being talked about a lot. Are we sure this isn't a hindsight bias?

[Melissia]

It might be. But then to me the talks of the various Marine armies tend to blend together into one overfull vessel of blah.

[Sir Biscuit]

Ah, yes. Well, that makes sense. In that case, I bet you'd like these two searches too.

marine (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marine+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&cts=1273038024986&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
not marine (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=not+marine+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&cts=1273038019338&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Hardly scientific, but fun. :)

[Duke]

I think the "not marine" search could be refined a lot... But I like the idea.

[Sir Biscuit]

Haha, it was just a joke.

Alright, let's try for something better... HERE WE GO:
marines and variants (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marine+OR+%22blood+angels%22+OR+%22space+wolves% 22+OR+%22dark+angels%22+OR+%22black+templar%22+OR+ %22space+marines%22+site%3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&cts=1273039561439&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
everyone else (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=guard+OR+%22witch+hunters%22+OR+chaos+OR+tyranid s+OR+eldar+OR+%22dark+eldar%22+OR+%22sisters+of+ba ttle%22+OR+daemons+OR+necrons+OR+orks+OR+tau+site% 3Abelloflostsouls.net+-lounge.belloflostsouls.net&cts=1273039565343&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

EDIT: as fun as these searches are, I don't really think they prove that much. I'll bow out of the thread after this one and let you all get back to it. :)

[Grabula]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start with the latest codex out if you start up a new column on the various codices. Equalliy it would make sense to start with the oldest, any other choice is probably arbitrary. Except perhaps alphabetic...


Sure, I get why one would see more articles on newer stuff, but since BA came out it feels like most of the articles have been BA related. Battle reports are BA vs something else and so on. It seems like most of the guys writing articles have picked up BA. It's just got a little boring for those of us non BA players out here, that's all.

[Melissia]

Kinda like it's always boring for non-SM players.

[Noxx]

Not really; "non-BA" means "don't play BA", "non-SM" means "don't play space marines, blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, or black templars". It's kinda the same, but not really.

The BA excitement will die down soon, I'm sure of it. Can't blame the contributors for being a little overexcited about the newest, shiniest toys - it's a hobby blog ran by hobbyists, pure and simple.

[Melissia]

Not really; "non-BA" means "don't play BA", "non-SM" means "don't play space marines, blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, or black templars". It's kinda the same, but not really.

The BA excitement will die down soon, I'm sure of it. Can't blame the contributors for being a little overexcited about the newest, shiniest toys - it's a hobby blog ran by hobbyists, pure and simple.

No, it means "don't play space marines, blood angels, space wolves, dark angels, Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, or black templars"

There are seven Marine codices, not five.

[Noxx]

Come on, even you aren't that pedantic. GK are in the daemonhunters codex, and none of the articles relating to other power armoured armies is really relevant to them, so I deliberately left them out. Their army list is more divergent from codex: sm than any of the marine chapters. I dunno, in the context of you bemoaning the amount of SM-oriented content on BOLS, GK clearly aren't part of that.

I appreciate that you were just point-scoring, but that's no excuse for being so internally contradictory.

*edit* Oh, and CSM included too? Missed that little nugget, from that it's obvious that you're joking. Pardon my response, then.

[Melissia]

Wait, I was joking?

No... I was not. Chaos Space Marines are still Space Marines, even if they are no longer a part of the Adeptus Astartes.

If saying a Space Marine is a Space Marine is pedantic, then yes, I'm being pedantic. You should, too. Marines who are angry at their dad are still Marines.

[Noxx]

Since the context that you yourself invoked was "editorial content that excludes some players", there's a lot more to that than simply a 3+ armour save, surely? There's almost zero similarity between codex:CSM and codex:SM, and content geared towards "marine players" is of little use to DH or CSM players. Some - possibly - but little. I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear.

All this nitpicking aside, my original point still stands - far more players are "non-BA" (quite a few) than "non-SM" (probably close to none). By (imho, wrongly) including GK and CSM in that list, you only reinforce my point.

[Melissia]

... Marines are Marines. It doesn't matter if they're spiky, if they're emo, if they're vamps, if they're furries, or if they're pink and have cat-ears, they're still Marines.

[Noxx]

I'm not talking about them being emo or spiky. I'm talking about them in the context of the original poster, and now you, that "life can be boring for non-SM players". How are you not getting this?

Content that BOLS can generate for "marines" - tacticas, hobby stuff, lists.

Codexes, and therefore players, that will derive some use from that content: SM, BA, SW, BT, DA

Codexes, and therefore players, for whom that content will be of no use: CSM - models, lists and tactics totally different
GK - models, lists and tactics totally different

The main SM codexes (ie the loyalist ones, excluding GKs) have 90% the same codex entries with minor variations, and essentially the same models. GKs and CSM only share a slim few codex entries with the others, and none of the same models, so GK and CSM players won't benefit from the same editorial content that 5 other armies/players will.

If we're going to talk about who does and doesn't benefit from the over-tendency towards marine articles on BOLS (which personally I don't think is a problem that exists at all, but I thought you were talking about it, anyway), you can't lump DH and CSM players in with the ones who do benefit. They obviously don't.

[Melissia]

You're talking about the context of my post.

I'm elaborating on the content of my post.

[Sir Biscuit]

Wait, is this "Chaos Space Marines, Grey Knights and Space Marines are the same" coming from the same Melissa that gets all mad when anyone suggests that WH and DH could be the same codex? The same one that hates when people confuse the sisters of battle as part of the =I=?

Just sayin', you may hate marines, but these ARE different armies. And yes, I think a lot of us would agree that most SM codices could be combined into one very big book, (I certainly do) but I don't think that book could reasonably contain CSM and GK as well.

[Noxx]

You're talking about the context of my post.

I'm elaborating on the content of my post.

Oh for goodness' sake.

Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell:

You can dislike the BA-happy nature of a lot of BOLS at the moment, without subscribing to the whole "boo power armour, marines are boring" *bit*. One of those things is perfectly reasonable, the other less so.

Other than that, I was always taught that if you had nothing nice to say, to keep shtum, so this is me keeping shtum.

[Lerra]

It depends a lot on the list. GKs and CSMs can both run lists that feel like vanilla marines or lists that have very little in common with MEQ. A daemon-heavy CSM army led by a daemon prince is definitely its own entity. Necrons have more in common with SMs than a daemon-heavy CSM list does.

[Melissia]

Well congratulations, you don't ahve to agree with me entirely. Noone said you had to agree at all...

Also, power armor != Marines. I like the former...

[DarkLink]

Oh, obviously if it has a 3+ save, it's a Marine:rolleyes:. So Sisters are just like scouts with power armor, right?



It depends a lot on the list. GKs and CSMs can both run lists that feel like vanilla marines or lists that have very little in common with MEQ. A daemon-heavy CSM army led by a daemon prince is definitely its own entity. Necrons have more in common with SMs than a daemon-heavy CSM list does.

I think the only real relation the GKs have to vanilla Marine lists would be Land Raider/Terminator heavy ones. Any and every other GK list plays completely differently from virtually all SM lists. You just can't play Grey Knights like you would normal Space Marines, aside from aforementioned Land Raider rush lists.

[Noxx]

I think the only real relation the GKs have to vanilla Marine lists would be Land Raider/Terminator heavy ones. Any and every other GK list plays completely differently from virtually all SM lists. You just can't play Grey Knights like you would normal Space Marines, aside from aforementioned Land Raider rush lists.

that.

[Melissia]

They're still Marines. Shiny ones who are much cooler than normal Marines, but Marines nonetheless.

You are measuring things by army list, something which is irrelevant to me; I am measuring things by the background and story behind the unit. The background, the story, the "fluff" behind the unit is the most important, defining aspect of the unit to me, and without it the unit's nothing more than a bunch of numbers, which is boring (I am not a math student, but a biochem student-- the numbers must MEAN something to me, not just exist). I will take an army that has cool fluff and make it work, no matter how weak or strong it is numbers-wise. I will not, however, take something with a good statline but boring fluff-- IE, Marines-- and play with it simply because of its strong statline.

[Necrosis]

I think we'v gone to far off topic. Let's get back to the point which I think was some guy thinking that all list are now competive but not fun or something like that.

[Noxx]

You are measuring things by army list, something which is irrelevant to me; I am measuring things by the background and story behind the unit. The background, the story, the "fluff" behind the unit is the most important, defining aspect of the unit to me.

Sorry, just assumed measuring things by army list was the point of the thread - which content is useful to which players (ie BA content not useful to the majority).

My mistake.

[Melissia]

First article? Red Space Marines. Second article? Blue Space Marines.

So what's next, Furry Space Marines? Green Space Marines? Spiky "I'm Angry At My Daddy" Space Marines? Crusader Wannabe Space Marines? At least Silver Space Marines might be somewhat interesting as they don't get nearly enough press... but meh...

[Old_Paladin]

So what's next Green Space Marines?

You don't need to worry about that Mel; the Green Marines simply suck too much there's nothing anyone can write that will make them better.
Except the Green Marines with magma highlights; they're pretty cool, they even get to have families (not that many people both to talk about that very much).