40k Tournament Armies

[me_in_japan]

likewise, my mono-nurgle CSM army isnt a theme? I deliberately set out to only use units that could take the mark of nurgle or be daemonically possessed when I built the army. My reason for doing so had absolutely nothing to do with how it plays. In fact, at the time I hadnt even read the codex, and have since found that it doesnt play very well, but when I started playing 40k there were NO mixed chaos forces. You picked a chaos power and built your warband from there. I still find mixed forces a bit questionable, especially ones which mix opposed chaos powers. According to the old fluff, you'd be as likely to see Slaanesh and Khorne on the same side as Imperial Space Marines and Nurgle on the same side.

tbh, I'd say using units from the whole codex almost disqualifies you from calling your army "themed". By imposing limitations on yourself by not using the whole codex, surely you are gimping your army, not making it stronger? You can make up fluff for your marine chapter and paint new iconography on it, but if you use the whole codex, then basically its just ultramarines with a custom paint job. (Nowt wrong with that, mind you. My eldar fall firmly into this category.)

However, if I take 2 units of 10 wraithguard with warlocks, 3 wraithlords, a farseer and a wraithseer, am I spamming or am I just playing Iyanden according to the fluff?

spamming is an entirely different thing to themeing. I wouldnt even say 2 of a unit is spamming. 2 units of eldar guardians are spam? 2 units of dark reapers? 2 wraithlords? who decides which units are spammy and which units arent?

I think spamming is when you choose units which you deem to be very powerful against most opponents and max out on them. Not one or two. Max out.

Theming is when you think about the fluff and background of your army, and build an army which matches it as closely as you can, regardless of the playability of said build.

that's my two yen, anyway. Take with as little or as much salt as you like. We're all entitled to our opinions (except Pikey. He's barred )

[frans]

I didn't mean for anyone to take it personally. And I understand your point but I do not agree.

[Spevna]

I didn't mean for anyone to take it personally. And I understand your point but I do not agree.

No worries mate, it is all just friendly deabte

Out of interest, what army do you play and what would you consider a themed list for that army?

[The Underdweller]

I'm thinking of getting a 3rd unit of Battlesuits for my Tau army. Would that be considered spamming? Is it possible to have a cheesy Tau army?

[frans]

A theme is mostly about look and feel, I do not think that mechanized IG is a good theme.

A good theme is something that is applicable to all units in the army. Why not include normal orks in a weirdboy list. I would use a weirdboy as nob and claim that they are rejects. (there must be alot of different orks clans)

[Spevna]

A theme is mostly about look and feel, I do not think that mechanized IG is a good theme.

A good theme is something that is applicable to all units in the army. Why not include normal orks in a weirdboy list. I would use a weirdboy as nob and claim that they are rejects. (there must be alot of different orks clans)

You could include boys as apprentice meks or the weirdboys disciples/followers. Too many boys and it would defeat the point of having an OddBoyz army as, well, they wouldn't be very odd.

Having nobs that look like weirdboys may look the part but it wouldn't be a proper Oddboyz army.

But anyway, what army do you play and what would you consider a themed list for it?

[frans]

But anyway, what army do you play and what would you consider a themed list for it?

I have a some Tau in the closet that I would like create a Tau jungle-army of.

[me_in_japan]

I didn't mean for anyone to take it personally. And I understand your point but I do not agree.

no worries, chief as spev says, tis just a case of differing points of view

I'm just trying to clarify your opinion for myself - when you say "themed army", would it be fair to say that you see a themed army as one which is only different to a regular army in terms of aesthetics. i.e. it only looks different, it doesnt play different?

[Colonel Voss]

A theme is mostly about look and feel, I do not think that mechanized IG is a good theme.

A good theme is something that is applicable to all units in the army. Why not include normal orks in a weirdboy list. I would use a weirdboy as nob and claim that they are rejects. (there must be alot of different orks clans)

Just to defend the Imperial Guard, if I was to play say a Steel Legion, mechanized is par for the course for that world.

Likewise, my army, the 414th Kahayan Striker is an assault infantry based themed army. That means a horde of infantry going over the top with armor support. No mechanization, no airborne assaults, no recon forces. They are painted in a martian based scheme. This is the army I built in the 4th edition guard codex and I haven't changed it after the 5th codex comes out. It's how I see my regiment and the world they are from. I wouldn't change it even if it gimped me. My Minotaurs(blood angels) and Demons are also cut down based on the stories behind them. In all cases these cuts limit my army and in many ways makes them weaker as many of the powerful units just don't mesh.

While I can understand what you are saying about the paint schemes. I will have to respectfully disagree with you that a good theme must include all units in the army. To me that feels too limiting on what I can or cannot do with the theme of my army. If I have a great theme idea that says no to units x, y, and z, then why not?

[Danguinius]

Getting back to the original post, I`ve come to the conclusion recently that 40K and WFB just don`t transfer well to the tournament setting. Their rulebooks seem to have been designed by people who never imagined the game being played in a tournament setting. As opposed to Warmahordes which is designed for such a thing; I`m not sure how I`d change any of my Warmachine or Hordes lists into a "tournament list".

As many of you know, I`ve grown increasingly fed up with GW and 40K over the last 2 years or so. I really disliked how vehicles - especially trasports - came to dominate in 5th Edition. I tried to buck the trend at Nagoyahammer in 2010 with my Daemon army (no vehicles) and did pretty well - but it was an uphill battle. I tried again with a no-vehicle Blood Angel army this year and did very poorly. I just think GW has long since given up on game balance and instead has learned: #1. Selling a unit with a transport makes more cash than selling only a unit. AND #2. Selling the same cheezy unit three time makes more money than selling a balanced unit once.

I wanted to end the rant there...but one more point: This is also why GW takes so long to update their codices. It`s not that they can`t do it. It`s that they don`t want to do it. GW wants you to watch your army get weaker as a result of codex creep, get frustrated, give up, and then start a 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc.) army. That`s the best way for them to make cash long-term. Of course, this creates great imbalances in game play...but they don`t care. Compare this to WM/H where the armies are constantly updated at the same time and each new release is created with overall game balance in mind. Look at it this way, what in Wrath invalidated older models/rules. (Not only PP, but certainly the most prominent now...) Privateer Press seems to be wargames by gamers for gamers; GW seems to be wargames by shareholders for gamers/kids.

I was a proponent of tourneys for Nagoyahammer because none of us are overly competitive (with maybe the exception of Dante AND Mephiston in the same 1500 point list ), but if people are worried about spam lists and leafblowers, I would gladly support adding a lot of soft scores to the Nagoyahammertournament.

Danguinius