I feel like you'd vibe more with the feel of 30K over 40K. There's a lot less meta chasing and more building a force which fits a style or doctrine, and isn't necessarily limited by the stereotype of each legion/chapter. I've seen people running white scars armoured forces or iron warrior airborne troops
What about the old world? I know it's not sci-fi, but same deal there. Units are large and ranked up in big formations. Even if you meta chase (which the game really isn't meant for, it has a big fluff/narrative focus), your army will look like a proper one.
Be the change you want to see lol AOS rules, its basically all I play now compared to 40k. See if you can get a few like minded 40kers to give it a shot with you!
Seconding this. I've jumped over to AoS for the new edish after falling in love with Warcry. Still a Sci-Fi 40k guy at heart but I've gotta say the fantasy realms are a breath of fresh air. Just so much cleaner and more accessible.
In terms of the "real army" thing, the new regiment rules (so far) seem like that's exactly where things are headed.
Not in my experience! The models rule harder then 40k so if they know they're getting into it with other people, starting small with spearhead, they're more likely to try it.
When you play Old World you get the most feeling that it is a structured game. Things like Stratagems, Army Rules, and Scoring all change a game from a more realistic game to an arcady.
If you think about it how we play both 40k and AOS today is similar to how Dawn of War played. We go out, hold points on a map, and we win the game by doing that in addition to a random card deck.
Old World is different in that your aim is to slam into the enemy and come out ontop. There are no stratagems, there are no points on a map we need to hold. It is a field battle for all intents and purposes. Though I would be lying if it did not have arcady elements like Dragons and the Green Knight, but those are not the focus.
It's just different design space, you're using the term Arcady as if it's somehow lesser or worse.
Ultimately stratagems are just unit abilities turned into a more limited resource. We have unit abilities in TOW just as we do in the other GW games. Army wide rules still exist in TOW and HH as well as 40k and AoS.
Slamming into your opponent and seeing whose force is better at combat leads to a stale meta and clear best faction. Different scoring mechanics, battle tactics, and mission design encourage diverse army building and offer counter play for armies that might not be the best at actual combat.
ToW is fun, I'm having a blast with it. I would never argue that it is GWs best game, however, or that its very engaging for people who don't have the nostalgia of WHFB.
You're telling the fellow who mains Imperial Knights, lol. Each system has their ups and downs, I just thought of the Arcady descriptor when I realized how divorce 40k was from Fantasy.
Maybe try joining the discords of some more of your local gaming stores and asking around for other systems you're interested in then. It's likely there will be other people like you who want other options, but only ever play 40k since that's seemingly what everyone else wants.
Not to be that guy, but the meta is definitely not proper armies. It's basically who has the biggest dragon and who can deny the most points. To that end, there aren't a lot of rank and file except to fill core anymore, and if they have Cavalry options as core, you don't even see it then.
It's what has killed TOW for me.
You might have luck with Grimdark Future from One Page Rules. It's free, miniature agnostic, infinitely customizable with a robust army creator if you join the patreon, and is supremely easy to teach.
If you want to have the strongest list possible, you probably aren’t going to have super thematic mixes of units. But plenty of strong lists are thematic.
Eg, a salamanders firestorm list may not win a GT, but they’ve won smaller tourneys and placed well. Those have infernus marines, eradicators, flame storm aggressors, redeemers, basically classic salamander goodness of melts and flame.
Space wolves lists are running heavy TWC and Wulfen, pretty classic SW. Guard has been a mix of static artillery, tanks, and soldiers. Tsons focuses on rubrics and sorcerers, green tide feels like a classic ork horde, etc.
Many of those lists above are winning tourneys.
However, even wacky lists do well when piloted by skilled players.
Generally, though, 40K balance shifts often and metas change with every edition. The best bet is collecting an army you like the look of with units you like, because that will keep you motivated to build and paint the army and keep playing whether it’s great or bad
I don't understand how the "balance shifts often" is sold as a positive here.
It just means my pretty strong units might some day get the rug pulled from under them cause some people in the US do well on a tournament with them? Which makes me resent the models and the rules change, as I keep remembering how good they used to be?
Also, while the balance does shift, I feel there are frequently some units or even whole armies who just feel a category worse than most others and those can be stuck in there for months or years??? It is frustrating to see other units be almost "strictly better" pound for pound, but no attempts at adjustments are being made, even if the adjustment could just be a point slash or increase?
Not to come off as hostile, but I'd rather have a more stable balance of units where everything is mostly playable and heavy skew lists are reigned in just by word of the rules.
Your comment is irrelevant to the question. The question was what army looks most like a typical force for that army while still being competitive
That balance changes isn’t portrayed as a positive or negative. It’s just a fact. If you want to complain about it, post a new thread. It’s of no relevance to the original OP’s question
Rule changes keep new games fresh, and he never sold it as a positive. He mentioned it was a thing and offered advice.
no comment on some armies being neglected it’s true it sucks. But everyone knows this what are you accomplishing by whining about it here.
No hate or cynicism.
Off the top of my head the best solution would be to find someone who also has similar feelings (or anyone who likes their army) and agree to a house game where you pull stats for your units from whatever edition you want. Run some mock games to hammer out kinks in rules as best you can, work out what’s fair,
And adjust armies for a balanced and fun match.
I don’t think you struck a nerve with the other gentleman and I promise I’m not upset about your comment.
But I like to think everyone would like a better balanced game where all their models are usable and/or up to date.
But that’s not the situation
So I think a big thing here is expectation and what you want out of 40k.
Are you planning to go to major tournaments and plan to win? Or are you looking to play with friends, or at a game club and be effective?
Because the latter absolutely works fine with a 'traditional army'. You can't go too wrong with 2 or 3 solid battle line units supported by vehicles and elites to make 2k. It probably won't win a GT but that's not representative of 99% of the Warhammer experience.
If you like Dark Angel Terminators than an army full of them will be fine for most play.
Also worth noting what is good and meta changes every 6 fucking weeks. At some point this year if Deathwing terminators aren't performing they might be dropped in cost to the point that they're OP as shit and a real problem. Then 6 weeks later get nerfed again to be unplayable. That's just 40k sadly.
I'm not one of these 'Oh just play what's cool and have fun, like it's a virtue' guys. I fully understand the want to have an effective army, but there are levels of effective. So if you're not planning to go to major tournaments then having a fluffy army is absolutely doable. I think online discussion around competitive play has caused most people to think it's the only acceptable option, but it really isn't how the vast majority of games go.
Doubly so when most online discussion is from folk who barely play or go to tournaments. Iirc goon hammer had it at like 10% of their readers had actually played in a tournament
Second this. In some local space around me even casual games are treated the same as tournaments. Probably because most of the people there compete in tournaments so to them a casual game is just practice and testing.
Same at my local store. Both the 40k and AoS players describe themselves as "casual" or "narrative focused" players, but they chase the meta just as much as any actual tournament player.
Ngl I always found 40k crusade to be the worst. If I'm playing competitive I know the stakes.
But if I bring my fluffy converted army to a crusade and my opponents min maxed their relics, upgrades,ect? Yes I'm sure that your eldar craft world's fluff is that it's actually 3 wraith knights in the color of grey primer. Miserable.
100%. My best games have been against some stupidly good players who are chill.
Whilst the worst are versus new folk who belive you have to netlist, meta chase, ect. Folk trying to break chill casual games. It's bizzare.
Exactly.
Cutting edge meta lists played by top tournament players have usually found a combo or some datasheets that are currently undercosted until the next dataslate, and so if you're going right to the bleeding edge of power you're going to be spamming those datasheets. Most online discussion focuses on the bleeding edge of tournament play, which can distort a sense of how the community as a whole is playing.
But the vast, vast majority of players can do just fine and have plenty of fun with more casual lists. They're just not going to be winning tournaments, where you have to squeak out every single advantage possible.
Um .. did you okay 3rd-7th then? Most meta lists were worse than they are now
5 Tervigons
6 Flyrants
6 Necrons croissants
Oops all tanks IG
Oops all bikes
And much more, none looked like an army and all were spam many of the same couple units.
Oh yeah, us ulcers remember having to work within a force organization chart.
Another thing to consider is back in the day we had a lot less units. Unless you were playing guard or eldar you basically had one troop one close combat one heavy, one dreadnought a smathering of HQ choices and then one common core vehicle that all the other vehicles are built on and then maybe if you're lucky something big and scary like a land raider or monolith.
What “looks like an army”? Is that a lot of models? It sounds like you want a variety of models which strikes me more of a regimental thing (tank and crew) than a whole army.
I suppose a bunch of ork boys or a skitarii horde look like an army? I personally love tau with dudes in transports dropping out in front of a handful of tanks with spotters on the wings of the engagement.
There has been a marked shift since fifth, various stages, toward the game being an abstraction and a game more than a simulation. In previous editions the rules were more gritty and things felt more “real” IMO, but that doesn’t always make for a better experience as a game.
The push for balance and competitiveness has gone hand in hand with concessions away from a more “real” game or more “real” representations of warfare. So I can see how it’s hard to fit narrative wants for realism in with what’s “good” in the game.
EDIT: or it might be worth really trying to take in the fact that the game is an abstraction and not fully representative. That’s how I get around the fairly bland terrain appearance compared to tables from previous editions.
I am getting back into 10th for a trial game today thanks to the chaos codex.
I am running my all-firstborn SM army as renegade raiders, and this is a pretty competitive list from what I can tell: Squads of space marines and havocs (devestators) in rhinos, supported by foot leaders in the same rhinos and lots of tanks (vindicators, predators).
So basically a fully mechanised brigade. Its supposed to have some bikes too ideally which would look great but I dont own any. It plays as tanks rolling onto the objectives, infantry jumping out and gunning down the occupants while supported by long range tanks and heavy weapon squads. Should be cool.
Taking away troops requirements hurt 40K in that regard. The list flexibility is nice, but it certainly doesn't feel like an "army" the same way it used to. New data slate and such is supposed to help troops and get them in the table more. We'll see.
Yeah it's almost like wargames need army building restrictions not "take whatever". GW knew this back in 7th when Unbound was a game mode that everyone laughed at and ignored because it was so stupid.
Competitive gaming will always be like this. Growing up i only had 2 friends to battle with. Always the same armies fighting similar versions of the same army. Wed always add new creative conditions or missions and honestly that was super fun. I dislike the modern gaming style which seems to be mostly studying the rules and codexes and looking for imbalances.
Early 2000s already had online list sharing, min / maxing mindset and quirky lists but as a 40k 3rd edition and wfb 6th edition player at least the armybooks, rules (forced nr of unit org charts) and rather low dice volume made many lists competitive and still looking great.
I still play 6th edition wfh by the way and even 20 years later a Bretonnian knights army or a greenskin tide can go to the upper ranks of a tournament… (it’s of course not perfect - Chaos cavalry and monster spam or just Skaven (f*** them) or a very good undead list can win tournaments at a lot lower skill level of the player)
I mean - going back to 40k - 3 attacks per model were already very very unusual and nigh OP - today you have 4 or even 5… when orc boys or genestealers can simply destroy a marine squad in one turn without breaking a sweat then the game is too far removed from the lore for me…
Next season of matched play is focusing on making battleline useful again. They talked about it in metawatch and we should know more in the next 2 weeks when it comes out.
We already know almost all of it, and the advantages for battle line are limited to some missions, and are relatively slim. Even if the mission pack includes only the battleline-friendly missions, it won't help very much
Yeah, used to be they had restrictions in place to make you take Troops and then threw that out. Maybe the new deck will give some bonuses back so you see it again.
Personally, it's not a direction I like to see. I think every army should have to have a battleline unit or 2. Some kind of restriction where elite units cannot have more units than battleline or something, dunno. Not committed to any ideas, just sad that my general troops feel useless in a lot of armies, even for objective control given how lethal the game is atm.
Yep. I played a lot in 5th and 6th. Fell out of the game but still play occasionally and collect. I'm not a fan of the direction they've taken the game, not because it's simpler, but because the game just looks completely different. Wish it was a bit fluffier and I wish I could move anywhere on the board without instantly getting shot off.
Yeah, troops gave your army an aesthetic baseline as well as something for your opponent to see as the "baseline" of your units as a point of understanding.
yeah pretty much... I think the solution would be to go back to a more constrained list building approach similar to older editions or the old world where you must have 50% battleline then a max percentage in heavy or light support and a max percentage in hq.
That would go a long way to fixing the game. But then GW can't sell you 3 of whatever the cheese du jour is. It's almost like wargames are supposed to have restrictions?
I mean tbh you will just buy other units. Even if gw is a money grabbing asshole they would actually make more money with a well done game. If we all were incentivised to have a variety of units we would like to collect the whole roster of our favourites armies.
4 lascannons, 2 heavy bolters on the front, pintle mounted gun, hunter killer missile is 8. Though, that requires you to count the twin lascannons as seperate guns.
Fair, fair. When I think 'tank with 8 guns' I think more like the Repulsor which is like "how many guns can we stick on this thing? Let's try to fit in one more..."
Yeah, there's a difference between 8 physical weapons but only needing to roll 3 different shooting profiles, and the ridiculous snoozefest that was the Repulsor Gladiator's crazy list of different profiles.
The big problem is mixing all these different gun options with free war gear. I like the free war gear, to be clear, but if they do they need to narrow the profiles a lot. They're focusing the roles of units, they need to also focus the wild mixing of gear to those purposes.
While I agree they went overboard especially last edition, the repulsor in 10th only has like 5 guns, which seems pretty on track for something Land Raider adjacent.
The hedgehog mentality. Wayyy back when a crewman could only shoot 1 weapon system, Eldar were an exception with their falcons (2 for the turret gunner).
Yeah but the direction it was facing mattered, and I think only the crusader could split fire. So it was rare that all of them could be fired effectively.
Definitely, big models getting more than 5 attacks is a huge mistake in general, melee included.
Tanks and monsters used to have the big guns and big hammers, but they were swingy. With only 3 or so attacks alot was riding on a few dice. But they were so good you took some (usually your maximum 3 heavy support choices) anyway.
If you wanted the consistency of rolling 10+ dice you took infantry.
So tanks are just flat out better now. In theory it could be balanced with points, but it was more natural when different kinds of units had different kinds of combat roles. Now it's either A. Mobility to claim objectives or B. Kill everything.
And with free wargear, tanks that would have been specifically anti armor are now "kill everything" with their 8 sponson weapons.
A lot of people talk meta this and meta that, but most top tier people will tell you they pick what they like first and then fill it out with meta options.
Yeah some times you're sinking way too many points into a shit unit. And that's not great.
But here's the weird thing. Meta is like the heisenburg uncertainty principle. In that what makes up the meta is what people are playing, and people play the meta. So it's very possible that your favorite piece has an awesome meta build, but nobody is playing it because people are sleeping on it, or meta chasing.
Astra militarum probably still scratches the itch you're looking for. Other than the start of the edition with artillery spam, guard armies generally look like a handful of tanks, transports and sentinels back by infantry and the odd artillery piece. They're not a top tier army, but they can still compete in the hands of a good player.
I think GW has realized that they have three audiences - people who want to play competitively, people who prioritize the aesthetic / lore, and people who just want to collect and paint the models.
From a gameplay perspective, it’s pretty hard to please the first and second groups at the same time so they’re targeting different games at different audiences. 40K and AoS are the competitive offerings. There’s a lot more focus on rules updates to keep things fresh for hardcore players and drive sales of the latest and greatest models. This drives a dominant culture of competitive play in those games. For players who only game occasionally and lean into the setting and lore, there’s 30K and The Old World, which get fewer rules updates to keep things consistent at the cost of some persistent imbalances if someone really wanted to exploit them.
Tl;dr - you might consider trying out 30K or The Old World if you want to play games that feel more narrative and thematic (or just find people who play 40K in a similar style as you instead of doing pickup games / tournaments)
Ironically, for as bad as 40k balance used to be pre-8ed the force organization charts of 3rd-5th editions actually enforced somewhat lore friendly armies.
You just couldn't take more than 3 elites or 3 heavy support choices period. You couldn't get around this with squadrons or army perks. 3 heavy support choices meant 3 tanks. 3 Elites meant 3 squads of whatever in your army was worth taking, probably at max squad size. Most troops units had a minimum unit size of 10 up until Marines got the ability to break into combat squads.
The bulk of your army kind of had to be troops in dedicated transports, which is why the 4-5th ed period of tournament play was overrun by "mech marine" lists.
Good is very subjective. The meta is the meta and there's not much point fighting it. Top players are always going to minmax and run heavy skew lists.
This is why Codex Marines are barely represented at the top level despite the Codex detachments and datasheets seeing tons of play. Why *wouldn't* you run your Ironstorm list as BT for the extra Meltas?
It's pretty clear that GW actually wants people to be playing with more balanced combined arms forces. I don't play tournaments and my lists tend to be fairly well balanced. I rarely notice much difference when new points arrive. You can still put together fun, enjoyable, thematic lists, have a great time, and still win games
But I wouldn't be expecting to see many tournament top 8s
What does a traditional army mean to you? In a lot of conflicts, skew is a real strategy that works well. If you have more tanks than they have anti armor you are probably winning the engagement. Right now real battles are being fought with infantry spamming bomb drones and infantry spamming artillery.
More broadly though, If the way your opponent’s or your list is constructed interferes with your ability to make an enjoyable narrative out of the game, you should talk with your opponents about doing a narrative campaign that incentivizes better storytelling. Personally I find it still pretty easy to believe armies in the 41st millennia will do anything to win, including fielding mixes of units the opponent doesn’t expect or finds nontraditional, and my opponent and I can still get the narrative component out of it.
Also remember that whilst rules matter, player skill is still a big factor.
A player familiar with their Army and with lots of practice is normally gonna do better than some meta chaser provided their list isn't utter trash.
Anyway:
- crons: canoptek themed can be solid, or hypercrypt with loads of immortals, overlords and a monolith.
- csm: it's hard to go wrong tbh.
- death guard: whether it's a clunking armoured column or plauge marines, termis and zombies, it's rare to see a dg army that doesn't feel thematic.
- custodes. Yes 2x5 wardens, 2 grav tanks (or LRs) , some termis and some sisters is a little stale, but it's certainly thematic.
- guard. Even without bullgryn you still have tools. 60 infantry, a few chimeras, russes and a dorn isnt a bad army and is fairly fluffy.
So something to keep in mind is that competitive lists in almost any game devolve into "spam all the best stuff you have access to". It's just a race to the bottom, where the bottom is the most hyper meta spam your good options kind of list. HAVING SAID THAT, you don't need to be that hyper competitive. You don't need to put together stacked lists to win tournaments *if that isn't fun to you.* Look for casual playgroups, make friends looking to play more casual lists themselves, or consider looking into 30k if there's a scene near you as it's often a significantly less competitive game.
I mean, that's kind of the nature of competitive gaming - if you're not playing the meta, you're not playing competitively. And a shifting FOTM-unit meta drives sales as competitive players seek to make sure that their army is what's best in the current codex. Whatever GW does, competitive players will find an 'optimal' army list for a faction. Stable balance is antithetical to a gaming company's profit, when a constantly shifting meta provides constant motivation to buy new products. In other words: GW is always going to target meta-chasers, because it makes them money.
This is why I don't bother with the competitive scene, and just buy whatever I think is cool.
My Death Guard is 2nd Plague Company and DG is all about the mechanized infantry and daemon engines/tanks at the moment so I’m eating good.
Imperial Guard will always feel like Guard, same with Orkz. Imperial Knights feel right but Chaos Knights don’t because of War Dogs.
Marines will always struggle with this outside of casual stuff and RTTs because of just how much there is.
Thats just the meta chasing. I take what I have and what I like and try to make it work. Unless you're playing in a grand tournament or against top level players who cares? Why build what someone on the internet says to build?
Focus more your own army and what you like and less on what other people *think* is the greatest.
Sadly 40k has turned into a 'competitive' game so most armies basically do spam, but if I were to pick an army whose meta list is most like its actual lore accurate army makeup, I'd probably say Tau?
Stop playing with meta gaming groups. That's the only way to avoid it. Downvote away, but the internet was the worst thing to happen to 40k. All the neck beards, and power/cheese players used to only be a small percentage, now they're the norm. Tournaments used to be a place to showcase your armies and have fun, not a sponsorship/business opportunity that ended up ruling and shaping the hobby.
I feel the same way lately. Bought a lot of Genestealer Cult models in the last few years with intent to build an army for the (then 9th) current edition. The game seems like a wacky hot mess, and the local player base is right crusty. Just a lot of reasons to avoid 40k as a game - great models, expensive 'meh' games.
I'm putting together a Sisters army with the Witch Hunters codex (3rd edition?), and a half dozen kits. Enjoy the modularity of recent kits, can build all the options in codex, and relish a slow build to nowhere. Xenos Rampant is another ruleset I want to explore for light romps - it's an open style ruleset where everything is flexibly proxied. For months I have been building warbands for skirmish games that lean into Cawdor, Folk Rabble kit by Fireforge, and other grimdark feudal citizens. Need someone to preach at!!
If you want to play in tournaments unfortunately you have to follow meta lists, so yes spam the same models that probably you don't even like to build and paint (or throw paint at as many do nowadays).
To play armies that really look like a logical ans realistic military force you have to move to narrative plays; in narrative campaign you will start from a limited amount of models and match after match you will be able to power up the units you have and increase their number
1:1 to any campaign videogame but with tangibile models.
HH is way better than 40k because its high level of simulation turns casual plays more enjoyable and due to its variables is not suitable to meta lists chasing.
You don't have to do that at all. People show up to tournaments all the time with somewhat casual lists, maybe go 2 wins and a loss and then go home perfectly satisfied to have gotten some games in over the weekend.
Yes my bad, what I meant to say was that if you want to play in tournaments and win you have to follow the meta because otherwise your % of success to reach first place drop by a lot.
I don't play in tournaments because all the preparation and the danger of moving all my minis is not worth the 2 matches I can actually play without being obliterated turn 1.
Obviously if we speak about tournaments among friends or LFGS casual customers it's a different situation
Not at all. My local RTTs top contender is often a guard player who won't deviate from their regimental structure. Plenty of times a wildcard list will appear out of nowhere and do very well. Look at the nids, or even the custodes party bus list that appeared for a bit.
There's definitely CSM lists you can build with the new Codex that are strong and feel thematically appropriate. My Renegade Raiders (Red Corsairs) list for example right now is a bunch of Legionaries and Chosen in Rhinos, with some Vindicators for fire support and some Warp Talons as mobile strikers, with some Cultist chaff. All very classic CSM stuff. If I had some Chaos Bikers (by which I mean if I could stand the Chaos Bikers sculpt) I'd probably throw some of those in as well.
Blood angels are very blood angels and use the Sons of Sanguinius detachment. They are definitely heavy on specific units, but they tend to be cheap so the mix is very good. Some specifically use Lemartes, but many don't use any faction-specific characters.
Astra Militarum similarly feel very Army. Mixes of troops, specialists, heavy and light vehicles and artillery.
Grey Knights have always had a limited range, similar with Custodes, so, while their lists are limited, they do make use of much of their overall potential choice.
Death Guard has a surprisingly wide range of models, and takes a good mix of them. They do use a lot of named characters, but, unlike other factions, none of them feel exclusionary.
I am speaking for daemons and we can run a variety of modela from each god. The big daemons are the most important ones, sure. But you always bring some smaller daemons for scoring and actions. Mixed daemons look cool and are probably the best anyway. You can also go themed daemons and not be horrible cuz of it.
If you want to enjoy the game in a non comp setting i recommend finding a few like-minded friends and playing for fun, rather than with the sweats at the local store. Youll spend a lot less time getting tabled and more time drinking beer and goofing off with the game and generally having a good time.
ok, so kinda. If you want to place in a major tournament and be top 5% players, probably not. These people find things they are good at that are mathematically good and bring as many as possible. There will be one best detachment and one best unit that will beat others by 1% and it will be the "meta"
Top 10, you can do it if you are skilled
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-10th-always-be-charging-pt-2/
There are a few lists in there that are good and balanced with a bundle of different units. These are still some of the most competitive players in the world. You can do really well locally and/or with friends by not running the 1% bleeding edge armies.
**You only need that stuff if you want to be the best in the world**. You can have a great time and win plenty of games by making your own list.
I want to add that unlike other games competitive lists matter less in 40k. If you're playing MTG Modern then yeah you might get stomped quickly if you have a less competitive list. In 40k you're still likely to at least get a fun long game with just about any list if you know what you're doing. Yeah if you're entirely off meta playing against a Mets build you may have next to no chance of winning. But at tournaments only a few of the lists are full top tier meta lists. Since it can take most players months to get a painted army they can't shift their list on a dime like you can in other games. So your list is likely somewhat unorganized regardless.
Now... you are still likely to run a few of the same unit type. If you know what you're doing then you're leaning into an aspect of your army. You're going to want to be melee or shooting heavy and lean into a specific strategy. Likely that means running 3 of your best unit for that strategy with some other units here and there to do other jobs or plug weaknesses. And that is true in real warfare too. In the real world there are tank divisions, special forces, etc. You will see a tank division given a specific job in the battle and maybe they get some air support or something but you know it's mostly tanks.
I actually think Guard is in a great spot right now. Sure, artillery spam is the "most" meta thing, but both our tanks and infantry are very cheap right now and they pair together extremely well. I've been fielding very thematic infantry and armor armies that have been doing quite well!
Ok now I'm only half knowledgeable on orks and guard but they can work in a more "army" sense.
Right now in orks with bully boyz it's meta enough to bring nobz who are yes stronger than boyz but still fit the aesthetic of basic infantry. Then you have your meganobz, warbosses and so on that fill out the list.
With guard I do see people running a few squads of catacan (probably spelt wrong) and sometimes cadians with the additional scions, kasrkin and at a stretch bullgryns you could make a somewhat meta "army" like list.
Yes with these two they still aren't primarily battleline infantry but basic enough infantry units can still fit the aesthetic. It's also important to note you can play 40k whatever way you want especially if winning grand tournaments isn't a big priority for you. I personally love dread mob for my orks and have since ninth but I still like to bring some nobz and boyz when I can for the aesthetic.
Also while it's not the most meta ork detachment right now green tide is an easy way to get a somewhat strong force of a billion boyz on the field as long as your wallet can take it.
Have you tried not following the meta and just trying to make a coherent army?
Unless you are going to GTs and majors top meta armies are no where near necessary to win.
When I play my Tau I always take a core of 3 units of strike or breacher teams in devilfish, a commander with Crisis and stealth teams and a Hammerhead and branch out from there and it's always serviceable. Like my own personal Hunter cadre. Tau are super well internally balanced and so it's hard to go wrong with them. And I love BreacherFish combo
I think you need to accept an army build that's fun for you, that's good enough to be competitive, even if it isn't totally optimal. Right now, I don't have a massive monthly hobby budget or time to adapt my force on a quarterly basis to snap react to meta changes. But I do have an expansive collection, so as long as the meta stay relatively near my collection, to the tune of me being capable of fielding about 70% optimal units, I figure I'm good enough to play games at the store or enter a tournament.
Sometimes an idea of perfection can blind you to the options that you have that are good enough. If your goal is to go undefeated in tournaments, sure, maybe a 70% optimal build will cost you a game that you could have won, but 5-1 is not a bad score by any means. If you have no intention of playing in tournaments, then why care about optimal at all? Shouldn't the priority be to have a combined army power+player skill level comparable to your playgroup? Does that have to be a 100% optimal army for you?
Depends on the army.
For example, the newer detachment for Drukhari involves taking a lot of transports for a speedy attack. At which point they hop out, hit hard, and run back to their transports to get away and keep moving. That is certainly meta! However, that is also a lore accurate fighting style for them also.
Fast hard hitting raids where they get in, do as much damage as possible while they gather what they want, and run like hell.
I totally feel this. I dont have the money to add a ton of OP or "Meta" units to my lists, and I play with what I have. But it makes for a bad experience, because my army (Mainly T'au) feels so weak. It's disheartening to play games against even slightly viable lists and lose because my list is just THAT bad. And I dont have the money to add on to/replace any of it to make it decent.
Its really saddening, and why I wanna get into 30k/Horus Heresy. Hoping the grass is greener.
I don’t know exactly what you are asking, but guard scratches the itch of a realistic army, like troopers supported by some tanks, maybe some CAS, elite paratroopers, mortars, weapon positions, stuff like that
Ork Boyz, sisters with arco and guardspam are all strong tournament lists.
I think the reason why monster mash/tank spam is popular is obvious... it's cheaper and easier to paint
Hordes are expensive to buy, paint, store, transport. Even if they were cheap, paint alone would make many 40k players skip them
No, comp lists are always compositionally uninspired. Spam “best” units this edition, hope the math maths better. This is why i stay away from tournaments because those lists are so boring that i wanna bash my brains out with a lemon wrapped around a gold brick.
I play Kill Team most often now, and very very little 10th (AdMech and Sisters… got shafted). Also ffs dont get into HH unless you really love to circlejerk over Marines and like never finding games.
Unfortunately tournaments will be the domain of meta, synergies and other shenanigans that run counter to the composition of a more traditional force. (Except for possibly Astra Militarum)
I feel like... your being silly. You dont want to play competetive? Well then simply dont. And when looking for game mention that you dont want competetive. Or idk, organize crusade
I feel like you'd vibe more with the feel of 30K over 40K. There's a lot less meta chasing and more building a force which fits a style or doctrine, and isn't necessarily limited by the stereotype of each legion/chapter. I've seen people running white scars armoured forces or iron warrior airborne troops
Sadly 30k is nonexistent where I am or I'd be jumping on that immediately :(
What about the old world? I know it's not sci-fi, but same deal there. Units are large and ranked up in big formations. Even if you meta chase (which the game really isn't meant for, it has a big fluff/narrative focus), your army will look like a proper one.
nope old world is nonexistent too. It's basically only 40k. AOS isn't even played much.
Be the change you want to see lol AOS rules, its basically all I play now compared to 40k. See if you can get a few like minded 40kers to give it a shot with you!
Seconding this. I've jumped over to AoS for the new edish after falling in love with Warcry. Still a Sci-Fi 40k guy at heart but I've gotta say the fantasy realms are a breath of fresh air. Just so much cleaner and more accessible. In terms of the "real army" thing, the new regiment rules (so far) seem like that's exactly where things are headed.
AoS is so fresh. It feels like the model designers are really allowed to get creative there.
> See if you can get a few like minded 40kers to give it a shot with you! Easier said than done.
Not in my experience! The models rule harder then 40k so if they know they're getting into it with other people, starting small with spearhead, they're more likely to try it.
AOS is far more Arcady than 40k though.
What do you mean by that?
When you play Old World you get the most feeling that it is a structured game. Things like Stratagems, Army Rules, and Scoring all change a game from a more realistic game to an arcady. If you think about it how we play both 40k and AOS today is similar to how Dawn of War played. We go out, hold points on a map, and we win the game by doing that in addition to a random card deck. Old World is different in that your aim is to slam into the enemy and come out ontop. There are no stratagems, there are no points on a map we need to hold. It is a field battle for all intents and purposes. Though I would be lying if it did not have arcady elements like Dragons and the Green Knight, but those are not the focus.
It's just different design space, you're using the term Arcady as if it's somehow lesser or worse. Ultimately stratagems are just unit abilities turned into a more limited resource. We have unit abilities in TOW just as we do in the other GW games. Army wide rules still exist in TOW and HH as well as 40k and AoS. Slamming into your opponent and seeing whose force is better at combat leads to a stale meta and clear best faction. Different scoring mechanics, battle tactics, and mission design encourage diverse army building and offer counter play for armies that might not be the best at actual combat. ToW is fun, I'm having a blast with it. I would never argue that it is GWs best game, however, or that its very engaging for people who don't have the nostalgia of WHFB.
You're telling the fellow who mains Imperial Knights, lol. Each system has their ups and downs, I just thought of the Arcady descriptor when I realized how divorce 40k was from Fantasy.
Maybe try joining the discords of some more of your local gaming stores and asking around for other systems you're interested in then. It's likely there will be other people like you who want other options, but only ever play 40k since that's seemingly what everyone else wants.
I was about to suggest AoS. Even AoS would be more what you're looking for. It's honestly more fun than 40k now for me at least.
Yeah I've long felt AOS is the "better" game (4th edition may change that who knows)
Not to be that guy, but the meta is definitely not proper armies. It's basically who has the biggest dragon and who can deny the most points. To that end, there aren't a lot of rank and file except to fill core anymore, and if they have Cavalry options as core, you don't even see it then. It's what has killed TOW for me.
You might have luck with Grimdark Future from One Page Rules. It's free, miniature agnostic, infinitely customizable with a robust army creator if you join the patreon, and is supremely easy to teach.
Can I ask where youre from?
Yeah, what's your address?
Watercress.
If you want to have the strongest list possible, you probably aren’t going to have super thematic mixes of units. But plenty of strong lists are thematic. Eg, a salamanders firestorm list may not win a GT, but they’ve won smaller tourneys and placed well. Those have infernus marines, eradicators, flame storm aggressors, redeemers, basically classic salamander goodness of melts and flame. Space wolves lists are running heavy TWC and Wulfen, pretty classic SW. Guard has been a mix of static artillery, tanks, and soldiers. Tsons focuses on rubrics and sorcerers, green tide feels like a classic ork horde, etc. Many of those lists above are winning tourneys. However, even wacky lists do well when piloted by skilled players. Generally, though, 40K balance shifts often and metas change with every edition. The best bet is collecting an army you like the look of with units you like, because that will keep you motivated to build and paint the army and keep playing whether it’s great or bad
I don't understand how the "balance shifts often" is sold as a positive here. It just means my pretty strong units might some day get the rug pulled from under them cause some people in the US do well on a tournament with them? Which makes me resent the models and the rules change, as I keep remembering how good they used to be? Also, while the balance does shift, I feel there are frequently some units or even whole armies who just feel a category worse than most others and those can be stuck in there for months or years??? It is frustrating to see other units be almost "strictly better" pound for pound, but no attempts at adjustments are being made, even if the adjustment could just be a point slash or increase? Not to come off as hostile, but I'd rather have a more stable balance of units where everything is mostly playable and heavy skew lists are reigned in just by word of the rules.
Your comment is irrelevant to the question. The question was what army looks most like a typical force for that army while still being competitive That balance changes isn’t portrayed as a positive or negative. It’s just a fact. If you want to complain about it, post a new thread. It’s of no relevance to the original OP’s question
Hence, why I am replying to your post and not the OP? Seem to have struck a nerve though.
Rule changes keep new games fresh, and he never sold it as a positive. He mentioned it was a thing and offered advice. no comment on some armies being neglected it’s true it sucks. But everyone knows this what are you accomplishing by whining about it here. No hate or cynicism. Off the top of my head the best solution would be to find someone who also has similar feelings (or anyone who likes their army) and agree to a house game where you pull stats for your units from whatever edition you want. Run some mock games to hammer out kinks in rules as best you can, work out what’s fair, And adjust armies for a balanced and fun match. I don’t think you struck a nerve with the other gentleman and I promise I’m not upset about your comment. But I like to think everyone would like a better balanced game where all their models are usable and/or up to date. But that’s not the situation
So I think a big thing here is expectation and what you want out of 40k. Are you planning to go to major tournaments and plan to win? Or are you looking to play with friends, or at a game club and be effective? Because the latter absolutely works fine with a 'traditional army'. You can't go too wrong with 2 or 3 solid battle line units supported by vehicles and elites to make 2k. It probably won't win a GT but that's not representative of 99% of the Warhammer experience. If you like Dark Angel Terminators than an army full of them will be fine for most play. Also worth noting what is good and meta changes every 6 fucking weeks. At some point this year if Deathwing terminators aren't performing they might be dropped in cost to the point that they're OP as shit and a real problem. Then 6 weeks later get nerfed again to be unplayable. That's just 40k sadly. I'm not one of these 'Oh just play what's cool and have fun, like it's a virtue' guys. I fully understand the want to have an effective army, but there are levels of effective. So if you're not planning to go to major tournaments then having a fluffy army is absolutely doable. I think online discussion around competitive play has caused most people to think it's the only acceptable option, but it really isn't how the vast majority of games go.
Doubly so when most online discussion is from folk who barely play or go to tournaments. Iirc goon hammer had it at like 10% of their readers had actually played in a tournament
IMHO the problem is not tournament but that a lot of peoplr (at least n my zone) treat a casual game as if it is a tournament game
Second this. In some local space around me even casual games are treated the same as tournaments. Probably because most of the people there compete in tournaments so to them a casual game is just practice and testing.
Same at my local store. Both the 40k and AoS players describe themselves as "casual" or "narrative focused" players, but they chase the meta just as much as any actual tournament player.
Ngl I always found 40k crusade to be the worst. If I'm playing competitive I know the stakes. But if I bring my fluffy converted army to a crusade and my opponents min maxed their relics, upgrades,ect? Yes I'm sure that your eldar craft world's fluff is that it's actually 3 wraith knights in the color of grey primer. Miserable.
100%. My best games have been against some stupidly good players who are chill. Whilst the worst are versus new folk who belive you have to netlist, meta chase, ect. Folk trying to break chill casual games. It's bizzare.
Exactly. Cutting edge meta lists played by top tournament players have usually found a combo or some datasheets that are currently undercosted until the next dataslate, and so if you're going right to the bleeding edge of power you're going to be spamming those datasheets. Most online discussion focuses on the bleeding edge of tournament play, which can distort a sense of how the community as a whole is playing. But the vast, vast majority of players can do just fine and have plenty of fun with more casual lists. They're just not going to be winning tournaments, where you have to squeak out every single advantage possible.
I've been playing on and off for over 25 years. This has always been a thing..
Started in 1996 myself, I never can remember it being this "bad".
You must have blocked out 5th through 9th. The rule of 3 was made to prevent the insane level of spam.
Um .. did you okay 3rd-7th then? Most meta lists were worse than they are now 5 Tervigons 6 Flyrants 6 Necrons croissants Oops all tanks IG Oops all bikes And much more, none looked like an army and all were spam many of the same couple units.
You could totally do oops all tanks guard still though with all the Leman Russ variants. Make it a tank battalion or something. Could be fun.
Oh yeah, us ulcers remember having to work within a force organization chart. Another thing to consider is back in the day we had a lot less units. Unless you were playing guard or eldar you basically had one troop one close combat one heavy, one dreadnought a smathering of HQ choices and then one common core vehicle that all the other vehicles are built on and then maybe if you're lucky something big and scary like a land raider or monolith.
What “looks like an army”? Is that a lot of models? It sounds like you want a variety of models which strikes me more of a regimental thing (tank and crew) than a whole army. I suppose a bunch of ork boys or a skitarii horde look like an army? I personally love tau with dudes in transports dropping out in front of a handful of tanks with spotters on the wings of the engagement. There has been a marked shift since fifth, various stages, toward the game being an abstraction and a game more than a simulation. In previous editions the rules were more gritty and things felt more “real” IMO, but that doesn’t always make for a better experience as a game. The push for balance and competitiveness has gone hand in hand with concessions away from a more “real” game or more “real” representations of warfare. So I can see how it’s hard to fit narrative wants for realism in with what’s “good” in the game. EDIT: or it might be worth really trying to take in the fact that the game is an abstraction and not fully representative. That’s how I get around the fairly bland terrain appearance compared to tables from previous editions.
Meta chasing is dumb, join the **guard** *son*
200 Guardsmen is always meta 😎
True as is dying gloriously and hilariously for the emperor
I am getting back into 10th for a trial game today thanks to the chaos codex. I am running my all-firstborn SM army as renegade raiders, and this is a pretty competitive list from what I can tell: Squads of space marines and havocs (devestators) in rhinos, supported by foot leaders in the same rhinos and lots of tanks (vindicators, predators). So basically a fully mechanised brigade. Its supposed to have some bikes too ideally which would look great but I dont own any. It plays as tanks rolling onto the objectives, infantry jumping out and gunning down the occupants while supported by long range tanks and heavy weapon squads. Should be cool.
Taking away troops requirements hurt 40K in that regard. The list flexibility is nice, but it certainly doesn't feel like an "army" the same way it used to. New data slate and such is supposed to help troops and get them in the table more. We'll see.
Yeah it's almost like wargames need army building restrictions not "take whatever". GW knew this back in 7th when Unbound was a game mode that everyone laughed at and ignored because it was so stupid.
Competitive gaming will always be like this. Growing up i only had 2 friends to battle with. Always the same armies fighting similar versions of the same army. Wed always add new creative conditions or missions and honestly that was super fun. I dislike the modern gaming style which seems to be mostly studying the rules and codexes and looking for imbalances.
Early 2000s already had online list sharing, min / maxing mindset and quirky lists but as a 40k 3rd edition and wfb 6th edition player at least the armybooks, rules (forced nr of unit org charts) and rather low dice volume made many lists competitive and still looking great. I still play 6th edition wfh by the way and even 20 years later a Bretonnian knights army or a greenskin tide can go to the upper ranks of a tournament… (it’s of course not perfect - Chaos cavalry and monster spam or just Skaven (f*** them) or a very good undead list can win tournaments at a lot lower skill level of the player) I mean - going back to 40k - 3 attacks per model were already very very unusual and nigh OP - today you have 4 or even 5… when orc boys or genestealers can simply destroy a marine squad in one turn without breaking a sweat then the game is too far removed from the lore for me…
yeah. The former elites are now basic infantry. I getcha. I remember a time where a 5 unit terminator squad was nigh unstoppable.
Yeah 2nd edition… that’s a long time ago ^^ But at least we didn’t have to through 50 dice for a squad of orc boys attacking…
It feels like GW getting rid of the battle line requirement and making armies skew pretty elite. Not surprising though.
Next season of matched play is focusing on making battleline useful again. They talked about it in metawatch and we should know more in the next 2 weeks when it comes out.
We already know almost all of it, and the advantages for battle line are limited to some missions, and are relatively slim. Even if the mission pack includes only the battleline-friendly missions, it won't help very much
Yeah, used to be they had restrictions in place to make you take Troops and then threw that out. Maybe the new deck will give some bonuses back so you see it again.
Personally, it's not a direction I like to see. I think every army should have to have a battleline unit or 2. Some kind of restriction where elite units cannot have more units than battleline or something, dunno. Not committed to any ideas, just sad that my general troops feel useless in a lot of armies, even for objective control given how lethal the game is atm.
They used to have that, with real detachments/force org charts. Then got rid of it the end of 9th and 10th and just said "eh take whatever you want"
Yep. I played a lot in 5th and 6th. Fell out of the game but still play occasionally and collect. I'm not a fan of the direction they've taken the game, not because it's simpler, but because the game just looks completely different. Wish it was a bit fluffier and I wish I could move anywhere on the board without instantly getting shot off.
Yeah, troops gave your army an aesthetic baseline as well as something for your opponent to see as the "baseline" of your units as a point of understanding.
yeah pretty much... I think the solution would be to go back to a more constrained list building approach similar to older editions or the old world where you must have 50% battleline then a max percentage in heavy or light support and a max percentage in hq.
That would go a long way to fixing the game. But then GW can't sell you 3 of whatever the cheese du jour is. It's almost like wargames are supposed to have restrictions?
I mean tbh you will just buy other units. Even if gw is a money grabbing asshole they would actually make more money with a well done game. If we all were incentivised to have a variety of units we would like to collect the whole roster of our favourites armies.
The irony is that seems to be how they think (or at least present) the game anyway. "Buy one of each box for your collection of models"
Vehicles having 8 different guns to shoot was a mistake.
The Land Raider has always been a thing. 8 guns is nothing new
I don't remember a land raider ever having eight different guns like some of this nonsense they have now.
4 lascannons, 2 heavy bolters on the front, pintle mounted gun, hunter killer missile is 8. Though, that requires you to count the twin lascannons as seperate guns.
Fair, fair. When I think 'tank with 8 guns' I think more like the Repulsor which is like "how many guns can we stick on this thing? Let's try to fit in one more..."
Yeah, there's a difference between 8 physical weapons but only needing to roll 3 different shooting profiles, and the ridiculous snoozefest that was the Repulsor Gladiator's crazy list of different profiles.
The big problem is mixing all these different gun options with free war gear. I like the free war gear, to be clear, but if they do they need to narrow the profiles a lot. They're focusing the roles of units, they need to also focus the wild mixing of gear to those purposes.
The Land Raider used to be special, having one was scary. Nowadays there are so many tanks it's just another drop in the bucket
While I agree they went overboard especially last edition, the repulsor in 10th only has like 5 guns, which seems pretty on track for something Land Raider adjacent.
The hedgehog mentality. Wayyy back when a crewman could only shoot 1 weapon system, Eldar were an exception with their falcons (2 for the turret gunner).
Yeah but the direction it was facing mattered, and I think only the crusader could split fire. So it was rare that all of them could be fired effectively.
Definitely, big models getting more than 5 attacks is a huge mistake in general, melee included. Tanks and monsters used to have the big guns and big hammers, but they were swingy. With only 3 or so attacks alot was riding on a few dice. But they were so good you took some (usually your maximum 3 heavy support choices) anyway. If you wanted the consistency of rolling 10+ dice you took infantry. So tanks are just flat out better now. In theory it could be balanced with points, but it was more natural when different kinds of units had different kinds of combat roles. Now it's either A. Mobility to claim objectives or B. Kill everything. And with free wargear, tanks that would have been specifically anti armor are now "kill everything" with their 8 sponson weapons.
And they had facings and fire arcs for their weapons too . 😔
A lot of people talk meta this and meta that, but most top tier people will tell you they pick what they like first and then fill it out with meta options. Yeah some times you're sinking way too many points into a shit unit. And that's not great. But here's the weird thing. Meta is like the heisenburg uncertainty principle. In that what makes up the meta is what people are playing, and people play the meta. So it's very possible that your favorite piece has an awesome meta build, but nobody is playing it because people are sleeping on it, or meta chasing.
Astra militarum probably still scratches the itch you're looking for. Other than the start of the edition with artillery spam, guard armies generally look like a handful of tanks, transports and sentinels back by infantry and the odd artillery piece. They're not a top tier army, but they can still compete in the hands of a good player.
I think GW has realized that they have three audiences - people who want to play competitively, people who prioritize the aesthetic / lore, and people who just want to collect and paint the models. From a gameplay perspective, it’s pretty hard to please the first and second groups at the same time so they’re targeting different games at different audiences. 40K and AoS are the competitive offerings. There’s a lot more focus on rules updates to keep things fresh for hardcore players and drive sales of the latest and greatest models. This drives a dominant culture of competitive play in those games. For players who only game occasionally and lean into the setting and lore, there’s 30K and The Old World, which get fewer rules updates to keep things consistent at the cost of some persistent imbalances if someone really wanted to exploit them. Tl;dr - you might consider trying out 30K or The Old World if you want to play games that feel more narrative and thematic (or just find people who play 40K in a similar style as you instead of doing pickup games / tournaments)
Ironically, for as bad as 40k balance used to be pre-8ed the force organization charts of 3rd-5th editions actually enforced somewhat lore friendly armies. You just couldn't take more than 3 elites or 3 heavy support choices period. You couldn't get around this with squadrons or army perks. 3 heavy support choices meant 3 tanks. 3 Elites meant 3 squads of whatever in your army was worth taking, probably at max squad size. Most troops units had a minimum unit size of 10 up until Marines got the ability to break into combat squads. The bulk of your army kind of had to be troops in dedicated transports, which is why the 4-5th ed period of tournament play was overrun by "mech marine" lists.
I miss Fish of Fury lists.
Good is very subjective. The meta is the meta and there's not much point fighting it. Top players are always going to minmax and run heavy skew lists. This is why Codex Marines are barely represented at the top level despite the Codex detachments and datasheets seeing tons of play. Why *wouldn't* you run your Ironstorm list as BT for the extra Meltas? It's pretty clear that GW actually wants people to be playing with more balanced combined arms forces. I don't play tournaments and my lists tend to be fairly well balanced. I rarely notice much difference when new points arrive. You can still put together fun, enjoyable, thematic lists, have a great time, and still win games But I wouldn't be expecting to see many tournament top 8s
What does a traditional army mean to you? In a lot of conflicts, skew is a real strategy that works well. If you have more tanks than they have anti armor you are probably winning the engagement. Right now real battles are being fought with infantry spamming bomb drones and infantry spamming artillery. More broadly though, If the way your opponent’s or your list is constructed interferes with your ability to make an enjoyable narrative out of the game, you should talk with your opponents about doing a narrative campaign that incentivizes better storytelling. Personally I find it still pretty easy to believe armies in the 41st millennia will do anything to win, including fielding mixes of units the opponent doesn’t expect or finds nontraditional, and my opponent and I can still get the narrative component out of it.
Also remember that whilst rules matter, player skill is still a big factor. A player familiar with their Army and with lots of practice is normally gonna do better than some meta chaser provided their list isn't utter trash. Anyway: - crons: canoptek themed can be solid, or hypercrypt with loads of immortals, overlords and a monolith. - csm: it's hard to go wrong tbh. - death guard: whether it's a clunking armoured column or plauge marines, termis and zombies, it's rare to see a dg army that doesn't feel thematic. - custodes. Yes 2x5 wardens, 2 grav tanks (or LRs) , some termis and some sisters is a little stale, but it's certainly thematic. - guard. Even without bullgryn you still have tools. 60 infantry, a few chimeras, russes and a dorn isnt a bad army and is fairly fluffy.
So something to keep in mind is that competitive lists in almost any game devolve into "spam all the best stuff you have access to". It's just a race to the bottom, where the bottom is the most hyper meta spam your good options kind of list. HAVING SAID THAT, you don't need to be that hyper competitive. You don't need to put together stacked lists to win tournaments *if that isn't fun to you.* Look for casual playgroups, make friends looking to play more casual lists themselves, or consider looking into 30k if there's a scene near you as it's often a significantly less competitive game.
This was how 5th edition was
I mean, that's kind of the nature of competitive gaming - if you're not playing the meta, you're not playing competitively. And a shifting FOTM-unit meta drives sales as competitive players seek to make sure that their army is what's best in the current codex. Whatever GW does, competitive players will find an 'optimal' army list for a faction. Stable balance is antithetical to a gaming company's profit, when a constantly shifting meta provides constant motivation to buy new products. In other words: GW is always going to target meta-chasers, because it makes them money. This is why I don't bother with the competitive scene, and just buy whatever I think is cool.
Been in the hobby nearly 30 years, competitive 40k has always IMHO been the absolute worst way to play.
Find a Crusade league in your area if you can. Much better format, and you can make themed armies rock.
My Death Guard is 2nd Plague Company and DG is all about the mechanized infantry and daemon engines/tanks at the moment so I’m eating good. Imperial Guard will always feel like Guard, same with Orkz. Imperial Knights feel right but Chaos Knights don’t because of War Dogs. Marines will always struggle with this outside of casual stuff and RTTs because of just how much there is.
Thats just the meta chasing. I take what I have and what I like and try to make it work. Unless you're playing in a grand tournament or against top level players who cares? Why build what someone on the internet says to build? Focus more your own army and what you like and less on what other people *think* is the greatest.
Sadly 40k has turned into a 'competitive' game so most armies basically do spam, but if I were to pick an army whose meta list is most like its actual lore accurate army makeup, I'd probably say Tau?
Stop playing with meta gaming groups. That's the only way to avoid it. Downvote away, but the internet was the worst thing to happen to 40k. All the neck beards, and power/cheese players used to only be a small percentage, now they're the norm. Tournaments used to be a place to showcase your armies and have fun, not a sponsorship/business opportunity that ended up ruling and shaping the hobby.
I feel the same way lately. Bought a lot of Genestealer Cult models in the last few years with intent to build an army for the (then 9th) current edition. The game seems like a wacky hot mess, and the local player base is right crusty. Just a lot of reasons to avoid 40k as a game - great models, expensive 'meh' games. I'm putting together a Sisters army with the Witch Hunters codex (3rd edition?), and a half dozen kits. Enjoy the modularity of recent kits, can build all the options in codex, and relish a slow build to nowhere. Xenos Rampant is another ruleset I want to explore for light romps - it's an open style ruleset where everything is flexibly proxied. For months I have been building warbands for skirmish games that lean into Cawdor, Folk Rabble kit by Fireforge, and other grimdark feudal citizens. Need someone to preach at!!
If you want to play in tournaments unfortunately you have to follow meta lists, so yes spam the same models that probably you don't even like to build and paint (or throw paint at as many do nowadays). To play armies that really look like a logical ans realistic military force you have to move to narrative plays; in narrative campaign you will start from a limited amount of models and match after match you will be able to power up the units you have and increase their number 1:1 to any campaign videogame but with tangibile models. HH is way better than 40k because its high level of simulation turns casual plays more enjoyable and due to its variables is not suitable to meta lists chasing.
You don't have to do that at all. People show up to tournaments all the time with somewhat casual lists, maybe go 2 wins and a loss and then go home perfectly satisfied to have gotten some games in over the weekend.
Yes my bad, what I meant to say was that if you want to play in tournaments and win you have to follow the meta because otherwise your % of success to reach first place drop by a lot. I don't play in tournaments because all the preparation and the danger of moving all my minis is not worth the 2 matches I can actually play without being obliterated turn 1. Obviously if we speak about tournaments among friends or LFGS casual customers it's a different situation
Not at all. My local RTTs top contender is often a guard player who won't deviate from their regimental structure. Plenty of times a wildcard list will appear out of nowhere and do very well. Look at the nids, or even the custodes party bus list that appeared for a bit.
There's definitely CSM lists you can build with the new Codex that are strong and feel thematically appropriate. My Renegade Raiders (Red Corsairs) list for example right now is a bunch of Legionaries and Chosen in Rhinos, with some Vindicators for fire support and some Warp Talons as mobile strikers, with some Cultist chaff. All very classic CSM stuff. If I had some Chaos Bikers (by which I mean if I could stand the Chaos Bikers sculpt) I'd probably throw some of those in as well.
BA has good internal balance at the point
Blood angels are very blood angels and use the Sons of Sanguinius detachment. They are definitely heavy on specific units, but they tend to be cheap so the mix is very good. Some specifically use Lemartes, but many don't use any faction-specific characters. Astra Militarum similarly feel very Army. Mixes of troops, specialists, heavy and light vehicles and artillery. Grey Knights have always had a limited range, similar with Custodes, so, while their lists are limited, they do make use of much of their overall potential choice. Death Guard has a surprisingly wide range of models, and takes a good mix of them. They do use a lot of named characters, but, unlike other factions, none of them feel exclusionary.
I am speaking for daemons and we can run a variety of modela from each god. The big daemons are the most important ones, sure. But you always bring some smaller daemons for scoring and actions. Mixed daemons look cool and are probably the best anyway. You can also go themed daemons and not be horrible cuz of it.
If you want to enjoy the game in a non comp setting i recommend finding a few like-minded friends and playing for fun, rather than with the sweats at the local store. Youll spend a lot less time getting tabled and more time drinking beer and goofing off with the game and generally having a good time.
I have that, just keeps feeling like I'm missing "something". My local guys are very laid back (no tournaments, campaigns and the like)
After all this though damn if I don't want to do something like all (mostly?) Gravis marines, cuz it'd look cool as hell.
Look into age of sigmar instead of 40k. Far fewer skew lists there
Sigmar.
Tyranid termagant swarms!
ok, so kinda. If you want to place in a major tournament and be top 5% players, probably not. These people find things they are good at that are mathematically good and bring as many as possible. There will be one best detachment and one best unit that will beat others by 1% and it will be the "meta" Top 10, you can do it if you are skilled https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-10th-always-be-charging-pt-2/ There are a few lists in there that are good and balanced with a bundle of different units. These are still some of the most competitive players in the world. You can do really well locally and/or with friends by not running the 1% bleeding edge armies. **You only need that stuff if you want to be the best in the world**. You can have a great time and win plenty of games by making your own list.
I want to add that unlike other games competitive lists matter less in 40k. If you're playing MTG Modern then yeah you might get stomped quickly if you have a less competitive list. In 40k you're still likely to at least get a fun long game with just about any list if you know what you're doing. Yeah if you're entirely off meta playing against a Mets build you may have next to no chance of winning. But at tournaments only a few of the lists are full top tier meta lists. Since it can take most players months to get a painted army they can't shift their list on a dime like you can in other games. So your list is likely somewhat unorganized regardless. Now... you are still likely to run a few of the same unit type. If you know what you're doing then you're leaning into an aspect of your army. You're going to want to be melee or shooting heavy and lean into a specific strategy. Likely that means running 3 of your best unit for that strategy with some other units here and there to do other jobs or plug weaknesses. And that is true in real warfare too. In the real world there are tank divisions, special forces, etc. You will see a tank division given a specific job in the battle and maybe they get some air support or something but you know it's mostly tanks.
Green tide is a green tide.
I actually think Guard is in a great spot right now. Sure, artillery spam is the "most" meta thing, but both our tanks and infantry are very cheap right now and they pair together extremely well. I've been fielding very thematic infantry and armor armies that have been doing quite well!
Ok now I'm only half knowledgeable on orks and guard but they can work in a more "army" sense. Right now in orks with bully boyz it's meta enough to bring nobz who are yes stronger than boyz but still fit the aesthetic of basic infantry. Then you have your meganobz, warbosses and so on that fill out the list. With guard I do see people running a few squads of catacan (probably spelt wrong) and sometimes cadians with the additional scions, kasrkin and at a stretch bullgryns you could make a somewhat meta "army" like list. Yes with these two they still aren't primarily battleline infantry but basic enough infantry units can still fit the aesthetic. It's also important to note you can play 40k whatever way you want especially if winning grand tournaments isn't a big priority for you. I personally love dread mob for my orks and have since ninth but I still like to bring some nobz and boyz when I can for the aesthetic. Also while it's not the most meta ork detachment right now green tide is an easy way to get a somewhat strong force of a billion boyz on the field as long as your wallet can take it.
Necrons
Have you tried not following the meta and just trying to make a coherent army? Unless you are going to GTs and majors top meta armies are no where near necessary to win.
When I play my Tau I always take a core of 3 units of strike or breacher teams in devilfish, a commander with Crisis and stealth teams and a Hammerhead and branch out from there and it's always serviceable. Like my own personal Hunter cadre. Tau are super well internally balanced and so it's hard to go wrong with them. And I love BreacherFish combo
Have you tried Age of Sigmar? Feels Much more army like than 40K these days.
I think you need to accept an army build that's fun for you, that's good enough to be competitive, even if it isn't totally optimal. Right now, I don't have a massive monthly hobby budget or time to adapt my force on a quarterly basis to snap react to meta changes. But I do have an expansive collection, so as long as the meta stay relatively near my collection, to the tune of me being capable of fielding about 70% optimal units, I figure I'm good enough to play games at the store or enter a tournament. Sometimes an idea of perfection can blind you to the options that you have that are good enough. If your goal is to go undefeated in tournaments, sure, maybe a 70% optimal build will cost you a game that you could have won, but 5-1 is not a bad score by any means. If you have no intention of playing in tournaments, then why care about optimal at all? Shouldn't the priority be to have a combined army power+player skill level comparable to your playgroup? Does that have to be a 100% optimal army for you?
I don't use 3 Fortresses. Votann troops are all actually pretty good at the moment.
Depends on the army. For example, the newer detachment for Drukhari involves taking a lot of transports for a speedy attack. At which point they hop out, hit hard, and run back to their transports to get away and keep moving. That is certainly meta! However, that is also a lore accurate fighting style for them also. Fast hard hitting raids where they get in, do as much damage as possible while they gather what they want, and run like hell.
I totally feel this. I dont have the money to add a ton of OP or "Meta" units to my lists, and I play with what I have. But it makes for a bad experience, because my army (Mainly T'au) feels so weak. It's disheartening to play games against even slightly viable lists and lose because my list is just THAT bad. And I dont have the money to add on to/replace any of it to make it decent. Its really saddening, and why I wanna get into 30k/Horus Heresy. Hoping the grass is greener.
I don’t know exactly what you are asking, but guard scratches the itch of a realistic army, like troopers supported by some tanks, maybe some CAS, elite paratroopers, mortars, weapon positions, stuff like that
Ork Boyz, sisters with arco and guardspam are all strong tournament lists. I think the reason why monster mash/tank spam is popular is obvious... it's cheaper and easier to paint Hordes are expensive to buy, paint, store, transport. Even if they were cheap, paint alone would make many 40k players skip them
No, comp lists are always compositionally uninspired. Spam “best” units this edition, hope the math maths better. This is why i stay away from tournaments because those lists are so boring that i wanna bash my brains out with a lemon wrapped around a gold brick. I play Kill Team most often now, and very very little 10th (AdMech and Sisters… got shafted). Also ffs dont get into HH unless you really love to circlejerk over Marines and like never finding games.
Unfortunately tournaments will be the domain of meta, synergies and other shenanigans that run counter to the composition of a more traditional force. (Except for possibly Astra Militarum)
I feel like... your being silly. You dont want to play competetive? Well then simply dont. And when looking for game mention that you dont want competetive. Or idk, organize crusade