Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just been over on Warseer looking at a debate on how good the Nid dex is and I've noticed more than a few people talking about people only using successful armies and lists, rather than ones they enjoy using.

So my question is as follows:

Do people think that the internet and all it's talk of what works and what doesn't have encouraged certain players towards using only those armies and lists that people see as bringing near instant success?

Personally I hope this isn't the case.
 

·
Pally-HO!!!!
Joined
·
1,417 Posts
At my local store the meta-list is becoming extremely popular. I don't think it's some big change, as I'm pretty sure the game has always been that way. You've got people who throw lists together that are made purely to win, and these people aren't necessarily the "power-gamer" type. All they want to do is have a good, enjoyable game.

Then you've got people like me who max out on plasma pistols/guns/cannons simply because I love plasma, regardless of the list I'm playing against. The people who make lists that are "fluffy" or just plain wierd are, and always have been, a minority, because Warhammer 40k is essentially chess with more rules. People don't play chess to have fun; the play to have fun winning.

The only way to get rid of people making these pure-win-lists is for GW to make it impossible via writing very strict codecies, which may or may not ever happen. There will always be one guy who opens a codex and says "look at all this new fluff!" and another guy who asks "how can I win with this?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
People have always been influenced by what others think; they are also more than likely looking for a justification for the choices they have made in what their army list may or may not contain.

While this is not necessarily a bad thing it does tend to contaminate the player base by filling it with un-inventive or un-original lists, therefore degrading the shared experience of playing the game.

I personally haven't gone with the most popular or most likley to win list; i have stuck to the 'philosophy of my chosen army: mostly Jump troops and CC oriented.
Hell! Even my Librarian has a jump pack :biggrin: (While i may not be the only person to do this, i don't know of any others who have done it :p)

Like you, i hope it isn't as prevelant as it seems

SGMAlice
 

·
blahblahblahblah
Joined
·
6,663 Posts
I absolutely do think so, todays generation of players are all about playing to win with the least amount of effort, not just playing with your toys for the sake of playing and figuring out how to do things for yourselves, after all why think for yourself and develop your own tactics when you can copy paste off the internet and play the same as every tom dick and harry and get encouraged to be that way by "experienced" players.

and its not like you have to worry about coming across something weird, cus you can be pretty sure the army across the board is gonna be the exact same mech spamming anti marine list as the one your using and that your game is going to be as bland as humanly possible.

and if you fight something else you can just do what most "experienced" gamers do and belittle and mock your opponent and his army choices to the breaking point where they just leave, giving another victory without having to try.

me I use units I like the look of, units that are ineffective and units that are fun because I like to see said players blood boil with hatred at having someone playing a way they don't like.

I especially love playing none mech and encouraging players to do none mech, I love how it really pisses of these so called "truly talented players", especially when they lose, but still count it as a victory on there signature W/L/D records or stains on a wall as is more accurate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,864 Posts
I tend to always form my lists from certain models I like. For example some people hate swooping hawks but I sometimes use mine simply because I like the conversion work I put in (I shoose the wings from the sanguinary guard. They look more like birds of prey now rather than flying cissies).

I am also influenced by new models I buy. My new list to take might lack anti-tank but it uses the new Karandras and scorpions I bought recently. I always get a certain satisfaction when I kick power gaming lists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
So my question is as follows:

Do people think that the internet and all it's talk of what works and what doesn't have encouraged certain players towards using only those armies and lists that people see as bringing near instant success?
Absolutely, yes and it's something I encourage, though I don't agree that using units/lists that other people think are good bring instant success. There's nothing wrong with doing some research online and learning from other people's experiences.

The more people that are willing to put time, research and effort into becoming truly talented players the better.
 

·
Grand Lord Munchkin
Joined
·
7,046 Posts
It really depends more upon the caliber( skill level) of the player, not the list. You can have a person who takes a top teir list like IG who has only played one or two games and put him against an experianced player with a less than optimized list and that experienced player is going to kick the shot out of him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
The best army can suck with someone who can´t play with it, the worst can be decent with someone who can play with it.

That starting players look up peoples experiences, well yes... Better a good copy then a bad product. They will make up their own minds in time.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
I think its a good thing.

At least that way i wont feel too bad for smashing foot slogging marine armies while trying to let them win.

If people would at least mech-up with their marines (some exceptions), then it would be an improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I think its a good thing.

At least that way i wont feel too bad for smashing foot slogging marine armies while trying to let them win.

If people would at least mech-up with their marines (some exceptions), then it would be an improvement.
Probably, certainly with marines and similar armies mechinisation tends to be the way, with those players who lack Rhinos being the ones who've just started out.

In a way though it's a shame, I fondly remember my mate's early marine army. It had no transports as our playing table was so small (29 inches across) that they weren't worth it.

Still I play Snakebites so I'm not complaining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
I had a topic much like this, about Copy and Paste list ruining the creativity. I try not to build a CAPL (Copy and Paste List), but will find a solid winnable list with my CSMs rather than use 2 Lash Princes, DG, and Oblits. Theirs others out there that try to find alternate list or use CAPL with a twist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,247 Posts
Some codexes force this on people, but it's through inferior design. Your list, while it does have an impact on your performance, can't really compare to proper tactical thinking. Powergamers will always be looking for the absolute best list, but let them, just use what feels right to your tactical mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
Do people think that the internet and all it's talk of what works and what doesn't have encouraged certain players towards using only those armies and lists that people see as bringing near instant success? Personally I hope this isn't the case.
I'm sure it has encouraged some people to buid cerain lists and think doing so will give them success with it. If they're experienced then they likely will have that success, but inexperienced players will probably struggle.

Forums like this one and every other one out there are always going to be used in such a way, it's called research. Some people only want to build competitive lists and that's their perogative. It's only if they're WAAC'ers that makes it fun or not for the people playing against them, not the fault of the list.

Some people might have 3/4/5 armies and don't want to waste money on units that under perform, so research helps weed out such units.

Me, I like the collecting side of a list and not just the gaming side, so I have units that are poor choices for a competitive list, but do fine in Campaigns etc, plus I like them as models.

My point been that people in this hobby are in it for diverse reasons, so there's no true right or wrong way to build a list..just don't suck the fun out of a game when playing anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,624 Posts
People who look online for lists is nothing new at all, people have been doing it for every collectable game on the market.

It's one of the reasons I'm thankful for the new mentality that GW has with the dexs, as most have a few builds that can be considered competitive. Though the transport spam is still going to be more common as it's the easiest build to make, most other builds are very much viable.

Personally I feel it's up to the players to do something about it if you keep playing the same list. You can build counter lists (some people call it cheap, I call it meta-gaming), or use the Planet Strike, or Battle Missions rules. Crying about people playing point efficent lists, be they from the internet or not, is just petty. If you play a list with the crappiest units available to you and lose it's your own fault.

I also get the feeling that the people that complain about players being rude and using copy/paste lists aren't giving the whole side of the story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I lot of guys will come into the shop and be talking up a brand new set up they're using. I tend to stick with what I feel is right sort of speak. To each their own though. I've seen a ton of great strategies implemented from people using others advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
At my local GW, we often talk about the Ultimate List (meta-gaming I think the term is, or Power Gaming), but that is purely for talk. Imagine if......

I myself have a bit of a balance between the two. For my LOTR army, I tend to focus on making a strong army list (as I have been playing LOTR for a bit les than a decade). I will often try to keep to a theme; eg: Massive moster army, 3 Trolls, Spider Queen and heaps of Goblins.

On the other hand, I find that 40K is easier to write fulffy lists, that are very competitive. For example, on my 3rd EVER game of 40K, playing Guard I was playing against this dude who I swear has been lpaying Ultrasmurfs since Rouge Trader (well....he was 18 so thats probably not true :grin:). Anyway, it is clear that he is a POWER GAMER, as he took Calgar + body guard + Venerable Dread in a 1000 pt game (I think it might have even been 800?).
So I am focusing on defining the story of my homebrew Guard Regiment (will post fulff soon) and I've got standard Company Co., Infantry Plt (2 squads and Platoon Co.) Vet Squad (this is where all the fluff happens) and a (proxied) Ratling Squad, plus a Russ.

Throughout the game, he systematicly concentrates his entire armies firepower on 1 suad per turn (or 2 squads), obliterating me, whereas I'm defining the fluff and the character of my army.
The game ended up a draw :)shok: what? me? Not loose!) and he was pissed that some Guard hadnt been squished by his POWER LIST.
I, on the other hand, had a great game (probably cause I didnt die turn 3 (first game ever!)) and I had some cool additions to my army. I converted some Ratling (as they werer awesome) and am trying to find some Dreadnaught bitz to put on the base of my Platoon commander as he survived 2-3 turns in CC with the Dread.

In conclusion (man this is taking ages to write!), I find that playing a 'fluffy' army (be it hard core name-your-dudes kind of fluf or 'PLASMA WEAPONS' as someone said before) you will have alot of fun. This is due to the fact that this is how the 41st Millenium unrolls. Epic battles are fought and great heroes arise from the rubble.

Edit: I think that people also just write lists for the 3 different battle sinthe BRB, and no other situation then those; where I think that you should plan for ANYTHING! Campaigns, Special Scenarioes, Battle Missions. Consider anything and write your own scenario rules. (I for one would love to play a game IG vs Traitor IG in a Stalingrad type setting. 5 Story building FTW)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
Anyway, it is clear that he is a POWER GAMER, as he took Calgar + body guard + Venerable Dread in a 1000 pt game (I think it might have even been 800?).
Id hardly call that a powerful list.
He would have a massive lack of troops, meaning he would be stuffed in objective-based games.
Using some decent tactics, even a crappy list should be able to beat it without too much difficulty.

Expensive units in low-point games are extremely noneffective (in most cases).
 

·
Grand Lord Munchkin
Joined
·
7,046 Posts
I agree with the king, that ain’t a power gamer, that’s a dumbass.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top