List Building - Principles

[emd1983]

Hey all! 

I am relatively new to AoS, and I have been reflecting on how best to build lists that are a balance of fun, thematic, and also competitive. I do really enjoy narrative play games, as well as the lore and so on, but I still think that trying to create competitive 2000pt armies is an enjoyable challenge. 

I was hoping to take advantage of all of the expertise on this forum, and ask for advice, tips, and general good points on generating competitive and fun lists? 

It seems that in the newest versions the main advantage is going to be bodies - given how victory points are generated - have I got that right? I presume any unit that is battleline, durable, and can be taken in large numbers will be the core of any army? If an army could deploy a huge unit to capture an objective, is this not going to be the main method for securing objectives and therefore victory? Don't know if I have got that right - thoughts appreciated! 

Also - is it worth picking one type of unit, e.g. sequitors/reapers, and then taking them in huge quantities? Is this specialisation better than a "flexible" army? 

What are the thoughts on endless spells/extra command points etc - worth the investment? 

Thanks for all your thoughts and advice!! 

[HammerOfSigmar]

I think you'd better first choose the allegiance. Different allegiance have very different tactics. 

[Overread]

What's best is going to vary army to army - some like Fyreslayers don't have a huge pool of choices to pick from ;whilst armies like Stormcast has a much wider variation in unit and thus have more potential choices within the army itself. This can result in big differences of "viable" lists and their nature even before you're comparing armies and different alliances.

 

I think one key element is to have a plan for your army and to build it around that. IT might be your plan is to specifically counter a certain opponent or opposing army (eg prearranged game); or it might be to take all-commers at an event. Even events themselves will vary this since an event might be all about objective securing rather than kill rates. 

So there's a fair bit to play with in terms of what might be the most efficient choice. Remember also that sometimes the most popular choices are not always "the best" they just have the more wins at major events behind them - which can come down to the players who play those armies not just the pure stats of the army itself. 

[Dead Scribe]

I find the performance of a list is 80% the list and then 20% how you run it.  The pure stats definitely don't tell the whole picture,  but you can usually bet that if you pick up a netlist that has done well in an event several times that you will have a strong base to work from and that learning the other 20% of it will simply be you practicing with it.  No matter how its spun, the math is still very strong in this game and something with an 80% probability will always be more in your favor than something 65% (going off of math probabilities and power coefficients) and netlists usually give you solid math to base your game on because someone else already figured it out for you.

Once you are solid with how that netlist runs, you can start swapping things in and out a little bit to experiment.  

[MacDuff]

There are a lot of armies out there you'll have to contend with. Some are fast, some small and rock hard, some ranged, some are snip off your face experts, some are smother you hoards. I wouldn't over-invest in rock, scissors, or paper. Having a mix of units gives you tactical flexibility, and you'll need it.

[Skabnoze]

I would first decide just “how” competitive you plan to be and how “competitive” the group of people you play with are.  I say this because there is a large gap between how you can expect armies to perform in the average local semi-competitive crowd and the top tables of tournaments.

If you are not going to be playing in the major tournaments, or playing against people trying to prep to go to those events, then the list of what you can play and have both fun and success with is broader.  If you want the cream of the crop best then there is still a good size pool of armies to work with, but the competitive army scale is shaped a bit like a pyramid.  The higher you go the smaller it tends to get.

So if army performance is something that is important to you then I would decide how high on the scale that factor is compared to background fluff, cool looks, etc.  

Basically just do your best to figure out what you want from the hobby and then use that to find the force that best fits those goals.  In addition, it is good to remember that army performance is fluid over time.  What is best today may not be best tomorrow when a new book comes out, an edition changes, the GHB changes points, etc.

[froo]

38 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

 What is best today may not be best tomorrow when a new book comes out, an edition changes, the GHB changes points, etc.

... what he means to say is the answer is always "goblins are best"

[Lucur]

I approach listbuilding like a checklist. First you need a leader and battleline. The rest is pretty much defined by the meta, how much anti-horde, anti-magic, counter to nagash, deny board... really depends on what you play against and what your army offers as answers.

Example: There's no reason to bring anti-magic a lot, when you're playing khorne, fyreslayers and kharadron all day.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, froo said:

... what he means to say is the answer is always "goblins are best"

I should never have to say this.  To quote Morpheus:  “is that air you’re breathing?”.

[Mayple]

21 hours ago, emd1983 said:

It seems that in the newest versions the main advantage is going to be bodies - given how victory points are generated - have I got that right?

 

21 hours ago, emd1983 said:

If an army could deploy a huge unit to capture an objective, is this not going to be the main method for securing objectives and therefore victory?

Yes, you are correct in your assumption There are exceptions to it, of course, but generally speaking you nailed it.

While numbers aren't mandatory, they -do- help a whole bunch

[emd1983]

Thanks for all your help guys, really appreciate it! 

[Nos]

Not a fan of playing net lists but I do recommend reverse engineering them, that is to say look at what they do well and why and then work out if that’s something you want to incorporate. It’s an excellent way to borrow someone else’s expertise. As per pretty much anything,  new stuff comes from riffing on what  someone has already done.

You have a better chance of making the “new” netlist if you understand why certain things work rather than slavishly copying what’s out there. Not to mention that the most important thing is to understand what is units can do, in absolute terms. That’s where strategy comes in.

Netlists are essentially designed to be followed like an equation. Turn 1 X, Turn 2 Y etc. Most netlists become popularised because they leverage against randomness to present a scenario for an opponent that is unsolvable. The aim is to make the game unwinnable before a dice is rolled. 

Outside of an openly competitive community most people won’t thank you for this as they don’t spend hundreds of pounds and hours and previous free evenings away from family members etc to be faced with the reality that their opponent has essentially made their playing the game an exercise in futility from the get-go.

But it’s also my experience that a lot of net list players simply don’t know how to play. They know how to follow instructions, they understand the gist of why their army works in its intended form. But do something they don’t expect, honestly anything irrespective of how minor it is, and they’re often thrown. 

Try stuff. Don’t be afraid to lose, it’s usually how you learn the most in anything in life. Winning and losing is meaningless, it's a game. It’s a fun game and the playing and learning it has been its own reward for me. I have a decent Stormcast collection now and I make new lists most week using different elements , it’s rare that they don’t do what I planned, not because I’m a genius or anything,  just because of familiarity with units and roles and scenarios gained over time.

Play with the models and rules and people that give you most pleasure playing the game and build lists accordingly. That’s objectively the best way.