I tend to find that generally it comes down to tactics more than unit choice in this case. I know people who use units generally deemed as "Useless" with amazing success. They also tend to be older gamers who have been playing for quite a while and are very experienced
Yup. I can agree with that. Lately, I have been using Stormtroopers with opponents who are still figuring out their game. I have been using said Stormies so much that I have started to get a hang for them and, lately, they have been more than pulling their weight. However, that does not mean that the Stormtrooper is a good unit. They are not, in my view, an optimal choice, though they are a badass one. My experience with them is helping to cover their flaws and bring them to the level of usefulness, say, a Russ starts out with.
However, once the total newbies have started really playing and building they're lists to higher levels, then it's time to start introducing more challenging lists for them to face.
Yup, that's why I have several types of lists for different players.
So if that newbie loves cut throat lists then hell yeah. If he doesn't then that's fine.
Well, this is based off of how I learn, but I never liked it when my friends showed me a new game, convinced me to play, and then kicked my ass into the ground. I learned slower than I should have because I didn't have a chance to learn, I was KOed before I could push two buttons. So, even if I have a newb who wants to play for blood, I tone my lists down, so they can play a full game and see just what each unit can do. Of course, if they have an Internet list, they get my best lists.
No, not all units and armies are equal, but tactic still figure largely into the game. I mean, i have seen skilled tacticians demolish huge 10 man nob biker squads with a small collection of simple units.
Sure, Leman Russ Demolisher + Battle Psykers + Valkyrie = 600+ points running off the board.
That leaves no room for the fluffy lists and fun, "sub-optimal" units.
I agree with the first part, sure. I love Straken, or, in my case, Captain Vito. He's a fun unit and it warms my heart to see a Guardsmen slap the crap out MEQ Captains, Lords, ect. Plus, I get to make Captain Falcon references.
"Aaaquuuuillaa Punch!" However, I don't think an army's background can come from the list. Sure, it comes in part. You can't claim to have a Mechanized army when you have masses of Conscripts. I think that an army can claim to be fluffy, or, a far better term, that it has character when the player has some written background and done some conversions/paintjobs. But that's just me.
I have to agree with them, I find tourney play really stressful and draining, which is something I like once in a while but certainly isn't why I play the game.
I can agree. Though it's not the lists that bother me, its the attitudes. People like that Tau player who stretched his Kroot to block a Biker army, people who fire at elbows, people who abuse sportsmanship or comp scores to get an edge, that's what pisses me off.