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

lambadomy wrote:I will say I'm sure Inquisitor_Malice used this technique on me at the LA GD last year. I shoulda gave him a 0 for sportsmanship just for playing a bike lord and prince, but he ingratiated himself with me by talking about dakka and being from Ohio.

Yeah - I admit that the bike lord was a toughy, but he was built to take a lot of punishment. As far as technique goes though - I prefer to chat with players I have never met before. You just never know who you will meet, what interesting things they do and more. I have personally kept in contact with many opponents throughout the country and even in the UK after the 20062007 Heat/Finals. I think I actually play games more seriously and focused against people I know well than I do opponents that I have never met or just barely know.

I think GBF's summary of shooting, mobility, and assault is a good start. However, there is far more to it that just that. Discerning the different types of each category and the overall effectiveness within a given category is key. Also comparing the effectiveness of each selection to what you may face is important. If a meta game did not exist, then each player would just take a number of random weapon, selection and unit options and not need to account for what they may face in the end.

Stelek: Do you draw this kind of flak on purpose? You can't hardly set foot anywhere in these forums without being digitally shot at. Does Dakka^2 cut you some kind of discount for drawing this much traffic?

All: Out of the dozens of defs suggested here, none seems to satisfy all, or even most of the thread participants. I sincerely doubt at this point any definition would. So unless someone can suggest some kind of reference that strikes the fancy of a large portion of this threads participants, then this thread is effectively dead. However, under that same logic (ie: no one can agree on a definition of a word), we just invalidated language on the internet. Go us. What a freakin failure this turned out to be. Sure, everyone came in and threw in their two cents (which is great!), but at this point we have everyone dancing around their pet definiton. Little to no consensus. For all the progress we have made, this thread has been a venue for everyone to voice their opinions, but I don't immediately see where hardly anyone seems to have taken away from it much they didn't have coming in.

</estrogen mode>

lambadomy wrote:

Heck, the metagame could be just your personality. Say I'm playing Darrian13 or Blackmoor in a game and I want to make sure I get high sportsmanship marks. I've met them both (Blackmoor only in passing, Darrian I've played with) but I don't pretend to know them well. Maybe I play quickly and well in game, and also make conversation about hey yeah I'm on DakkaDakka too, and yeah man I hate Stelek too, what a know it all jerk he is!

I you say what a jerk Stelek is, you get max sportsmanship!

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

I think GBF's summary of shooting, mobility, and assault is a good start. However, there is far more to it that just that. Discerning the different types of each category and the overall effectiveness within a given category is key. Also comparing the effectiveness of each selection to what you may face is important. If a meta game did not exist, then each player would just take a number of random weapon, selection and unit options and not need to account for what they may face in the end.

I agree.

Last year I built a good all-around Eldar list for the GT. The list kept losing to Darrian13's Godzilla Nids at RTTs. So I just changed my list so it could beat his Nids, and I went 9-0-1 at GTs with it.

So I think you need more than to just build a good all around list.

Blackmoor is spot on here. An all around list wont ever cut it against a half decent general who has a list that was made for defeting the base type of his army.

There is no doubt that if your army isnt equipped to handle mech-eldar and nidzilla, you wont make the top. Does anyone think its a coincident that these list have been mayorly overrepresented in the top for quite some time now?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ender502 wrote:Heh. I can do the internet shuffle as well! Whee.. this is fun!

You forgot to mention how you're also a ninja, a navy seal, can bench-press 500 pounds and... always wonder what the 3rd turn would be like, as you've always beaten your opponents before you ever get there. Oh! And that the last game you didn't win was because you collapsed from dehydration during the first turn - but you still drew!

Anyone thing that Stelek might be the advanced form of TFG?

BYE

I was trying to not rub anyone's nose in my accomplishments. Had i been truely merciless I would have mentioned my incredibly large..... Well, this is family forum so you get the idea.

And it is 500 pounds of bench press when I have the walking flu. Otherwise, it's more.

ender502

@grizgrin:

I think, on the whole, the broad wikipedia definition of "using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions" has been implied defended the most. Most of the other definitions put out (like the one about Role playing games) either obviously don't apply to 40k or aren't really definitions so much as just dismissals of the idea of the metagame with no definition. For example, one post basically stated that since "everyone" expects MEQs, and plans for them, that is the "metagame" - and since MEQs are less common now, those people are dumb and the metagame doesn't exist. This just defines the 40k metagame as "expect MEQ" without much of an argument.

Polonious seems to have beaten me to the punch in the page of the thread that I seem to have missed in putting out a similar definition - "the meta game is the game beyond the game".

You may be right that they don't like that definition or mine, and stick with their own, though I still don't feel that there have been a lot of other good definitions proposed. Mostly instead it's been saying that things you might consider metagaming (such as list construction with an eye on what lists you expect to see) are actually just part of the game, or saying that metagaming may exist but it's way too complex for us cretins to understand and it takes someone like Stelek or his buddy John Nash to get it.

Anyway - there may still be room here to discuss the 40k metagame with the definition of "using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions". Either way, I'm going make sure I have a good idea of who is playing in any RTT i go to and what they're allergic to...metagaming at its finest

I for one feel there is no 'Metagame' mentality here in Aus.

I still win with a Drop-pod army*sigh*

And could everybody please lay off Stelek?'


I for one read his posts like the Voice of "Mr Spock" is reading it out to me...... Incredibly arrogant-because he knows his stuff. He just dioesn't water it down with the usual Dreck about.


"Normal"-(if there is any such thing)
"I was here with this friend of mine, we wasted a couple of hours talking an stuff, played a game of toy soldiers and walked out a winner-Go Me!!"


"Stelek"-would say
" I came, I saw, I conquered."

I am not the most popular/friendly poster here on Dakka, but jeeez, give the dude a fair run.

The metagame is information about the game from outside the tactical game.

For example, if you go to a residential convention tournament you can probably expect that some of the members will be hungover the second morning and this will affect their playing. This is not information about the game, it is information about the players, and it is not part of the metagame. Knowing that 85% of the armies ar mech Eldar is part of the metagame.

Kilkrazy wrote:The metagame is information about the game from outside the tactical game.

For example, if you go to a residential convention tournament you can probably expect that some of the members will be hungover the second morning and this will affect their playing. This is not information about the game, it is information about the players, and it is not part of the metagame. Knowing that 85% of the armies ar mech Eldar is part of the metagame.

That is why the locals have an advantage in Las Vegas. On the second day the out of towners are blurry eyed and hung over from staying up all night, while the locals are well rested and ready to go.

After reading the thread from the OP onwards, including the multudinous "descriptions" of the Metagame..

My synopsis is-eating a good nourishing Breakfast before a GT or such could also count as Metagaming.

Nurglitch could probably do a pretty good darn flowchart to prove it too methinks....

akira5665 wrote:And could everybody please lay off Stelek?'


I for one read his posts like the Voice of "Mr Spock" is reading it out to me...... Incredibly arrogant-because he knows his stuff. He just dioesn't water it down with the usual Dreck about.


"Normal"-(if there is any such thing)
"I was here with this friend of mine, we wasted a couple of hours talking an stuff, played a game of toy soldiers and walked out a winner-Go Me!!"


"Stelek"-would say
" I came, I saw, I conquered."

I am not the most popular/friendly poster here on Dakka, but jeeez, give the dude a fair run.

You are incorrect. And no, we can't lay off Stelek. He is rude, arrogant, condescending, and superior to us in every way. But, we have no objective evidence to base any of this on, other than his word. He paints like crap, (as evidenced by his posts of his drybrushed rainbow fire prism), yet in his own mind, he doesn't understand why he didn't get a full painting score. He had the worst sportsmanship score at the LVGT he attended, yet said that he could have won if he wanted to, and he shouldn't have to apologize for how he plays. He constantly contradicts himself. The most recent example is where he stated that the metagame doesn't exist, then in another thread, he said it does. Etc, etc, etc. And he is rude, and arrogant, and condescending, etc.

Now, there are many other posters here that have excellent GT records. Blackmoor, Centurian99, Darrian13, Mauleed (Mauleed Fan Club forever!), Inquisitor Malice, etc, etc, etc. These people are the cream of the GT circuit so to speak, and they know what they are talking about. They are also not rude, arrogant, condescending, etc.

So basically, what Stelek would have you believe, is that all of this doesn't matter, and the world has been unfair and cruel to him. Well its just not so. Basically, if Stelek would be able to throttle back just a little bit, then we would lay off. But until then, we won't stand for his crap around here, and you shouldn't have to either.

Seconded. Lets get off the personal attacks. Its not helpful and there is plenty of insulting going around.

If the original proposition is 'there is no metagame' then I think we've pretty much disproved that statement.

To paraphrase the Matrix '... unfortunately, no-one can be told what the metagame is, you have to see it for yourself'. We can't agree a definition, but its definately there.

Further, I would take issue with GBF that you can design your army in a void and do well.
For example, you have two weapon options in a unit - they have different stats but the same points cost (plasmagun and melta gun are both 10pts) How do you chose which to take?
You use your experience and your knowledge of potential players to inform your choice - and that puts us back into the realms of metagaming.



P.S. - as for stelek, sad to say but we've all met someone like this IRL and the only thing to do is ignore them. Saying 'I am brilliant' constantly is a great tactic for winding people up and all comments his way just feed the beast. Its a pity, as there are useful insights in his posts, (if you can wade through the self-aggrandising b0ll0cks) but its usually not worth the effort.

Pride is not a sin - but humility is a virtue.

Boy, don't do a glossy shiny Eldar tank and it's crap.

Thanks for passing judgement on me, shall I call you O Lord now?

I'd have more to say but it's pointless. I'm sure this idiocy will go on for days.

All the definitions of Metagaming boil down to Sun Tze's wisdom: Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will be victorious in a 1000 battles.

I mean, its not that complicated - Metagame is just a fancy term for: understand the lay of the land, the mission paramaters, the expected enemy - understand the strengths and limitations of your own forces, their capabilities, your command capablilities, and utilize your assets in such a way to maximize effectiveness.

I don't know why everyone is harping on Stelek so much. His position that there's no metagame is completely understandable - mostly due to his inability to see his own limitations (apparently he has none) - thereby making him unable to wrap his mind around the fact that metagaming for us normal humans is exercising situational awareness and understanding the limits of one's own assets.

It must be hard to grasp the trials and tribulations that us mundane folk go through when your intelect eclipses the sun.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Pride is not a sin - but humility is a virtue.

The seven deadly sins are:
Sloth
Gluttony
Wrath
Lust
Envy
Greed
Pride

Knowing is half the battle.

I would guess that he was expressing his own opinion, rather than assuming he’s just somehow doesn’t know the seven deadlies.

I tend to agree with him.

@Whitedragon, that was one ugly fireprism. True that.

Darrian

Mannahnin wrote:I would guess that he was expressing his own opinion, rather than assuming he’s just somehow doesn’t know the seven deadlies.

I tend to agree with him.

Ragnar,
I responded to his assertion, which he very coherently stated in objective terms (as opposed to subjective terminology, which would indicate it was opinion-based). Had he chosen clearly subjective language, I would have debated the assertion, not quoted the seven deadly sins.

Pride, in the fashion with which Stelek has chosen to display it, is perhaps not a sin in biblical terms. But I'd argue that an excess of it (and the seven deadly sins are ALL about excess of emotion, not the emotion itself) is a character failing. But that is an argument for another time. As we have debated in the past, I respond to the language used in the post, trying hard (and sometimes failing) to not read intent into words that aren't there. Precision in diction is a virtue as well.

Inquisitor Malice said:

I think GBF's summary of shooting, mobility, and assault is a good start. However, there is far more to it that just that. Discerning the different types of each category and the overall effectiveness within a given category is key. Also comparing the effectiveness of each selection to what you may face is important. If a meta game did not exist, then each player would just take a number of random weapon, selection and unit options and not need to account for what they may face in the end.

Notice that I used the 13th Company as an example. I found the army was a great exercise for me having played the game for over seven years to go back and re-learn how to effectively build an army list. I say that because the Lost Company had very few choices:

- hq -
Wolf Lord
Wolf Priest
Rune Priest

(Note that you automatically had to field all three if you were playing over 1500 points.)

- elite -
Storm Claws (also available as retinue for Wolf Lord if mounted on a bike)
Wulfen (w. option as a troop choice if you took no Grey Slayers and Wolf Lord had Mark of the Wulfen - MotW)

- troops -
Grey Slayers

- heavy support -
Long Fangs

- fast attack -
Fenrisan Wolves
Storm Claw bikers (also available as a retinue for Wolf Lord)

That is a total of nine separate units to choose from. In my opinion there is only so much analysis that go into an effective army list for this race. I did spend six months play testing the list and I never once deviated from the final list beyond that point. Here is what I would take:

Wolf Lord (MotW) on bike w. combi flamer, lightning claw, Belt of Russ, 4x Fenrisian wolf
retinue: 2x Storm Claw bikers w. 2x flamer; Pack leader (MotW) power fist, combi flamer

Rune Priest (MotW) w. terminator armor, frost blade, combi melta

Wolf Priest w. thunder hammer, frost blade, Balms & Healing Potions

Grey Slayer pack (8x GS & 2x plasma gun; Pack Leader (MotW) w. chain fist, combi plasma, terminator armor)
Grey Slayer pack (8x GS & 2x meltagun; Pack Leader (MotW) w. thunder hammer, combi melta)

15x Wulfen

4x Long Fangs w. 4x lascannon; Pack Leader w. bolter

This list had a lot of so called no no's pointed out to me by other veteran Lost Company players... for instance no wolf packs besides the four purchased for the Wolf Lord, purchasing a frost blade and thunder hammer for the Wolf Priest and not using a squad of Long Fangs with meltaguns to Gate with the Rune Priest. The one time I did play against a 'conventional' 13th Company (e.g., lots of wolf packs, Wulfen as troop choices) I won by a big margin and mainly because I could outshoot him. My army was very fast by today's standards plus it could shoot well enough and it was a beast in close combat. In fact it was so good in the assault phase that I never once lost to a Chaos army or L&tD once I had my final list.

You can do the same thing in principle with any army list if you shorten your list of choices for available units. I have used this army list as a model for newer armies I have fielded since. All this was done without resorting to the so called meta game.

G

Mannahnin - thanks for spotting what I meant!

dienekes96 - I do know what the 7 deadly sins are in a biblical sense, I was simply meaning that there is nothing wrong with being proud of your achievements, but there's no need to force it down anyone's throat.

Unfortunately - explaining this lacks the pith of the original comment. Sorry for any confusion caused.

GBF, the fact that you can construct a list that works for you without reference to the metagame does not mean that the metagame does not exist. I mean come on:

Eldrad is the main reason why I play Mephiston in my BA army. I really need that Ld10 hood. If more eldar players would stop fielding him I would not need Mephiston. I have done a count for every eldar player I have played over the last six months and 97.65% of them use Eldrad.

You were called on this on another thread and had no good reply. The quote above shows you making a metagame-based decision. Are you now going to tell us that the decision was foolish? Irrational?

Wikipedia seems to think that:

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. In other words, sometimes using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions.

I'd say that that exists.

BYE

(edited away by mods)

Lol, Great read. I especially like the reference to a Mentat out of Dune. Brilliant.

Leaving the Stelek specific madness aside for a moment....

The whole "does the meta game exist" question is pretty uninteresting. Not only are we chasing definitions and quibbling over semantics, but it is a question that is comically over-broad. In a small gaming group where a particular build comes to dominate, taking a list to beat that build is clearly some kind of meta-gaming, but it is uninteresting and unimportant. Going to a major tournament, and mentally "mapping" what others might be taking based on the tournament rules, and bringing the counter to that a la Redbeard's ork horde in the Gladiator, is also a kind of meta-gaming, but in such a large tournament, with so many levels of player and list, it is really just gambling. Spending extra time during a tournament scouting opponents and armies? Awesome, but to me, that really falls under the umbrella of high level play.

To me, a much more interesting question is, in the tournament environment, to what extent is list building the decisive element in winning consistently, and do certain codexes have an inherent advantage in list design over others? Or is the game much more about playing well: understanding match-ups, having a mental image of possible enemy tactics, thinking turns ahead, etc. To me, this is the much more interesting debate.

My take is that really good players take good lists, either balanced or with a specific cunning build. The fact that both types of armies are usually in the top tables tends towards the view that says that it's much more about playing the game, as long as your list is not a blunder, or you get a pretty randomly drawn mismatch among a field of favorable competitors. This, along with a system where over the coarse of a game, dice are going to be statistically even, but where individual cases of variation in the dice can produce wildly different outcomes, means that it is really hard to answer this question one way or another. I do know that in the last couple tournaments I played in, as I rose in the ranks with wins, the more players I encountered who are of the opinion that 40K is a great tactical game, where list design is important, but where play really matters, and the less "GW are idiots their game is unbalanced crap" attitudes.

Also bear in mind that we are all working with basically anecdotal information. None of us really has the data. I would really love it if we could get data from all the major tournaments that showed, round by round, the codex vs codex match ups, the battle points spreads, and perhaps unique player id's to track whether certain players win with specific codexes or if there is a cohort that can win with multiple codexes. I am not a data man, but I'm sure some of you are. It could be a "if you build it they will come" situation, where if you were able to help with modifying the tournament software to make the export of this information easy, tournament organizers might be persuaded to use it.

bitztheclown:

You're right - no one has the data, so all anyone can do is go based on experience or a pile of anecdotes.

I don't even think a database of codex vs codex and round by round results would help. You'd need list vs list, since some (all?) of the codexes can create wildly varied lists. And even then you wouldn't have very much data - there just aren't that many tournaments, and the top players aren't playing each other that often in them. Maybe if you got people to upload results for games all over the country all the time you could get some interesting data. Some kind of national or regional ladders with very specific information in them (list, game result, players).

Hellfury, I challenge the idea that metagame is necessarily used out of pretension or whatever. I'm sure it sometimes is, but it's also a very convenient term. It's much clunkier to say "the way most people play 40k these days due to the state of game balance" than "in the current metagame."

Hellfury, this thread had pretty much moved on from the flaming and dogpiling onto particular posters stage. Dragging it back into the dirt is not appropriate.

We're done here. Anyone who's still interested in discussing the metagame can start a new thread.