Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Give DE a try and you will be amazed by what you can do.

I'm always amazed at how they sit on the table looking so ugly.

DE are quite good in CC, i was amazed when i played against them for the first time with my wolves. my wolves took quite a beeting, I won but just, only had my lord and my chaplain left plus a preditor and 2 grey hunters. the DE had nothing left. it was a scare for me.

Their model range is dreck but if you play with an open mind and think like an assassin you can win nearly any game with DE. Most people claim that they suck and smirk when they see my army but then respect my shooting ability along with a powerful assault element. My tactics are pretty damn basic; I play to my opponent's weaknesses in his list. If he is shooting heavy, I throw my wyches at them and with my lord can basically shred them in hth. If an opponent is very choppy, I shoot his squads to hell. Mobility is the key even though a part of my army is static I can still redeploy my heavy weapon squads to another place with a simple 6" move plus a fleet. The only problem is your only allowed to make few mistakes if any. Against a good opponent your almost down to zero mistakes.

My real problem is going up against balanced armies since they are the hardest because I cant take out a particular weakness that takes out their effectiveness. I always championed balanced armies win the tournaments because of their versatility.

Balanced armies are where its at.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/23/2006 8:46 AM
Balanced armies are where its at.

What game are you playing?

Posted By mauleed on 08/23/2006 10:07 AM

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/23/2006 8:46 AM
Balanced armies are where its at.

What game are you playing?

Green Bloater = BloodyT

Just your friendly neighborhood FYI.

Going through here, I noticed several people post about how they win more then they lose. Well damnit, where are all the guys who pick up that slack? Will all the losers in here please raise their hand?

*raises his*

Honestly, I don't to bad. Since finding my latest gaming group I've won about 40% of my games. Something I can be satisfied with. My current Medusa record is 4-2-5.

And my opinion on the Medusa winners... Kids on summer vacation. I was going through the top guy in Hydra, looking at his games. All against the same group of 5 or 6. Much like my group when I got into the game at 12 years old. There was several of us, and 1 guy consitantly beat the living crap out of us everytime. We would sit there and play 4 or 5 games a day, and we'd lose every one of them to this guy. That's my theory on those people.

i second that, they just keep beeting the same people over and over and make ther stats high of those wins

I keep hearing of this balanced army theory. Someone explain to me balanced. Is this taking as many craptastic options as possible. I understand themed, I understand shooty, and assault oriented but I struggle with this balanced as it's way to subjective.

This one time my tyranids won a game once.

I find it really hard to take win/loss records seriously with a ruleset like this. Its a fun game, but that's all it is... a beer-and-pretzels game... more fun when it's played cooperatively than competitively in my opinion. I wish I discovered this game when I was twelve... oh the stop-action movies my buddies and I would have filmed!

I got two 40k armies right now, but when 7th edition fantasy rolls out, I may sell once so I can hop onto the essentially better game.

Posted By Lemartes on 08/23/2006 1:40 PM
I keep hearing of this balanced army theory. Someone explain to me balanced. Is this taking as many craptastic options as possible. I understand themed, I understand shooty, and assault oriented but I struggle with this balanced as it's way to subjective.

The theory is that you can’t serve 2 masters.

 

What that means is that if you are half assault and half shooting, that you can’t do either well. For example you will be out-shot by shooting armies, and out-assaulted by assault armies.

 

Most people think that if you are going to shoot, really shoot. Take a look at Mauleed’s armies and they are about 90%+ committed to shooting, with a small counter assault force.

 

The same goes with assault armies. If you are going to assault, go whole-hog and really assault. If you have any shooting elements, they will get easily get killed, and add nothing to the synergy of the army.

 

Personally I like to go with a mix of 70% of one aspect, and 30% of the other with several units that can fill either roll.

My point exactly unless someone can prove otherwise. Balanced = unfocused and losing many games.  I just hear people say you need to use a balanced list to win.  

Posted By Lemartes on 08/23/2006 2:57 PM
My point exactly unless someone can prove otherwise. Balanced = unfocused and losing many games.  I just hear people say you need to use a balanced list to win.  

A "balanced" list has nothing to do whether or not it is all assault, all shooty or a mix,  but how well that list can react to any potential list an opponent can spring on you, and one where any weaknesses have been minimized and all strengths maximized. Far too many think "balanced" = "fluffy", which it does not, though the fluff nazi's would like you to think otherwise.

A "balanced list" is this mythical creature that allows a 50% chance of winning while enhancing the fun play experience of your opponent playing companion. Warm fuzzy hugs are optional.

Its advocates are mainly brain dead model pushers.

Yeah, that's always been my definition of a balanced list. One that has a way to handle any and all situations. Those lists are the reason why balanced lists are the powerful ones.

I think every scrap of empirical evidence I've seen since I've started has pretty clearly shown it's the unbalanced lists that dominate the tournament scene. The most effective lists are always the ones that have a bunch of the same things filling just a few limited rolls.

"Balanced: ability to react to any list an opponent can spring on you"

So, what some might call WAAC is by that definition also 'balanced'...as it will deal with every opponent in the same way.

Guess what, they are balanced lists...Thus effective lists.

Fine Here is some evidence; Paul Murphy's Blood Angel List had a mix of Power assault units with many shooty squads and it won Baltimore. I think Ed you remember baltimore. Marc Parker's Feral Ork list dominated shooting thanks to multiple rokkits and 9 kannons yet he had +80 Madboyz ready to chop people that list won Chicago 2005 GT. Shawn Kemp's Word Bearers had predators and several rapidfire shooting squads and a load of demons to back them up, he won Chicago 2006 GT. 2005 Minneapolis GT Marc once again won with a balanced Wych Cult army that kept your head down with miltiple lances and disentegrators while coming at you with crazy chics. Baltimore 2004 Shawn Kemp wins with lost and the damned and his army had a mix of traitor squads, tanks and a crap load of mutants for some chopping. Seems these armys have either 50/50 in shooting/assault or 60/40 either side. Thats 5 GTs and perfect examples of balanced armies.

My definition of a balanced army is an army that is capable of dominating any 2 phases of the game at any time. A friend once told me that and it holds so true to the game. If you can dominate 2 phases of the game, you can win it.

Without those actual lists, you can't say if any of them are balanced or not. For example, I very much doubt many people would say a feral ork list with nothing but mad boyz and the biggest squggoths is "balanced". I don't recall Paul's list being particularly balanced either. I recall it being your typical shooty blood angles list with a small, ubernasty hth element.

Edit: and besides, all of those would have lost terribly to my unbalanced list!

I've actually given up on trying to force people to the middle with balanced lists. I've decided that I absolutely *love* playing against the unbalanced lists. Love it. Because they go down easy, just like a high school cheerleader on prom night, or Ed's mom on Saturday. (Okay. That was out of line. I take it back. Heh.) If you can't get them on your side, show 'em why their side is f-ing stupid, I always say. To that end, I have begun to max my list out as well. But I do it better.

For example, say my opponent takes a "heavy shooty" list. Good. First turn, I hide my two small squads of Warriors, give him nothing to shoot at, open my WWP, and soar out with five units that have a potential 26" charge range. Add that to the 12"-15" forward deployement, plus 3" for the WWP, and I'm on top of the guy before he can shoot anything. Good thing you took all those guns, huh?

Say he goes "heavy assault." Yay me. I have Wyches. Wyches turn your "heavy assault" units into a fine, syrupy paste, striking first to thin your numbers with as many as 6 power weapon attacks right off the bat and reducing your WS so you barely hit, then 4+ invulnerable saving your best shot. And that's if I don't get the Disintigrators on your assaulty units before they get to me.

Say what you want about "shooty" or "assaulty." It's the ability to take on all comers that counts. Unbalanced lists can rarely do that, especially if the opponent (i.e. me) maxes out in the most important phase of all, and that's *movement.* If you can't stick and move in 40k, you're going to get beat by someone who can, and that's been proven over and over again.

I really hope people continue to overlook that fact. It helps my winning ways tremendously.

(Ed, PM me if you got my message. The PM editor on Dakka is TheSuck(tm), and I never know if my messages actually get sent.)

I got your message.

Incidentally, you're dead right about how to handle unbalanced lists: don't play to their strengths. But just because a list is unbalanced doesn't mean that it's going to be effective either. The whole point is to make an unbalanced list that still trashes you even if you try to adjust. Just look at all the debates about my 3rd edition marine list. People said the same thing you said now, that they're exploit it's weaknesses, and then I'd show them that those weaknesses had been identified and plugged with changes in list or tactics. So of course you're going to be able to beat up on an unbalanced list when it's designed and run by an inferior player. You've just been lucky enough to continuously run into inferior players.

But we can settle this all with our Eldar challenge! You take your balanced list, I'll take an unbalanced one, and we'll see who ends up with the better record.

Mauleed wrote:
But we can settle this all with our Eldar challenge! You take your balanced list, I'll take an unbalanced one, and we'll see who ends up with the better record.

But that doesn't prove anything.

My hypothesis is that you are an average player, at best, who just happens to be the most devious, laser-precisioned, gifted list-builder in the country. Your inadequacies as a player are covered and neutralized by your ability to exploit any given Codex. You taking an "unbalanced" army and winning with it is no challenge at all. My response to that is, "Well, duh." Of course you'll have a better record with an unbalanced list than I will with a balanced list. That does nothing but prove *my* point, not yours.

In order to really be a challenge, you have to take a severely *balanced* Eldar list. Designed by someone who is not you, i.e. me. Let me design your list, you go undefeated with it, and I will retract any and all previous statements I have made about your playing ability.

Or, we can, as you've suggested before, step it into my realm, and make it an army design contest. Painting and modeling, with the public (on both this forum and on TWF, so no home field advantage for either person) deciding the winner.

Or both.

I'm open to discussion on the specifics.

 

In order to really be a challenge, you have to take a severely *balanced* Eldar list. Designed by someone who is not you, i.e. me.

 

This is a good thread for that.

You should make a list, and everyone who wants to participate will take it to their local RTT. Then we will compare records.

Call it the Dakka RTT challenge.

(Of course different people have different play styles so the list will do better in some hands, and also the local 'talent' of gamers will also be a factor.)

So apparently we have several different definitions of what a "Balanced Army" is. So we should develop one for the dakka glossary. A so called balanced list has no focus, so it has no strength. While a "Jack of all trades" army will have something that can handle any opponent, its just as likely to have units that make no difference in the game. Balanced armies are easier to beat, destory the effective units first. The rest will follow.

xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

Crimson Devil wrote:
xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

You have no idea. You can't even hear my vocal inflections, because you have to read my comments on the Internet instead of in person.

Trust me when I say you know *nobody* as arrogant as I am, and you know *nobody* who cares less what a bunch of forum monkeys think of him than I do.

Posted By xtapl on 08/24/2006 11:39 AM
My hypothesis is that you are an average player, at best, who just happens to be the most devious, laser-precisioned, gifted list-builder in the country. Your inadequacies as a player are covered and neutralized by your ability to exploit any given Codex. You taking an "unbalanced" army and winning with it is no challenge at all. My response to that is, "Well, duh." Of course you'll have a better record with an unbalanced list than I will with a balanced list. That does nothing but prove *my* point, not yours.

Then clearly, to prove your point you must take my list and win with it as much as I do.

So I get to write the list.

And I promise it won't require ramming any illegal interpretations of the LOS rules down our opponents throat to make it work.

Sure, I could take a balanced list like yours, and I'm sure I could at least match your unexceptional performance, but what would that prove? Lots of people do that. No one has matched my record. So let's see if you can really do it, like you so casually claim.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 08/24/2006 12:38 PM

xtapl your arrogance is simply amazing.

Particularly since the record reflects that his performance is so inferior to mine.

It's all excuses with Xtapl.

Let's see if he shuts up and steps up for the "eldar challenge".

 

Balanced Army List - as defined by Games Workshop - An army that incorporates at least one choice from each selection in the army list, thus requiring the player to purchase at least one of each and every model produced no matter how inneffective they are on the battlefield. An exceptionally well balanced army list contains multiple selections from the poorest selling units of a given army.