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.

Stelek wrote out why he thought the metagame doesnt exist rather than the usual one liners.

good job Stelek.

malfred wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:malf,
I am an east coaster, baby. We do museums and crap.

Mus-eems?

Anyway, people do balance their lives better than you suggest. But if
you didn't have unbalanced people you wouldn't have great indy conventions
(any flavor)

We usually gathar round the ol' fishin' hole, and sing songs about crawdads. We also shuck alotta corn out here in the heart of 'merica.



We got mus-eems too i think?

I don't believe in the meta game based on what I said in my original post. There are far too many people playing in small local groups that are for the most part completely disconnected from one another.

What if you play in a store where the gamers there shun the use of powerful builds? Meta game that. Sure you can go ahead and power game there in the beginning but soon it's quite possible no one will want to play you. To me this type of environment eschews the meta gaming.

I do realize that there are certain lists we tend to see a lot of at regional and national events but by no means does that mean they are the best. In fact they are really quite boring to play against.

I do to some degree respect a player's acheivement when they do well at a high level but really these events are often by attended by the same people who have the time and money to do so. To claim they are the best in the game is silly to me. Maybe the Ard Boyz tournament is the closest we will see to crowning a true meta gaming fiend since it was broadly advertised and accessible to everyone (at least in the first two rounds)... but seeing that some people who came for the Baltimore GT that weekend and were invited to play in the final even though they did not qualify nixes that concept in my opinion. So to say that these so called top gamers define how we as a whole play is silly. Certainly the rules are not written to tailor towards their need to win.

Just because there are some so called top tiered lists such Zilla Nidz and tri Falc armies doe not mean they are actually the best or that most people play them. To me they are hand me down lists from the internet to be copied by players that lack creativity and solely play to win. Think about it honestly and I believe you will agree. I would not touch one of these armies with a ten foot pole due to the stigma associated with them. These armies also tend to be no brainers at best... take as much as possible of whatever it the most powerful and minimize the use of less powerful units.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So to say that these so called top gamers define how we as a whole play is silly. Certainly the rules are not written to tailor towards their need to win.

Just because there are some so called top tiered lists such Zilla Nidz and tri Falc armies doe not mean they are actually the best or that most people play them. To me they are hand me down lists from the internet to be copied by players that lack creativity and solely play to win. Think about it honestly and I believe you will agree. I would not touch one of these armies with a ten foot pole due to the stigma associated with them. These armies also tend to be no brainers at best... take as much as possible of whatever it the most powerful and minimize the use of less powerful units.

So very well said, GBF. Now I owe you a beer!

dienekes96 wrote:Seriously. Why waste your prodigious talents on this game? A bit of advice. I've been around horrifically smart and capable people, in several walks of life. The truly gifted have one thing in common. They don't have to talk about it. Because other people do.

They do? On the internawt? Can you show me the post where someone got their ass handed to them and they went on and on about it?

I'm curious, why didn't you put this post into Cent99's 'I won the gladiator at adepticon' post?

Riiight. A bit of advice. Keep the hypocrisy to a minimum.

I've been lurking most of the last decade. Now I'm not.

Enjoy it, or don't. I got tired of the real one sided metagames DOD ran (back when I was in the military) and I really didn't want to be a chess champion (because Chess is so predictable it bores me) but this game really makes my mind work.

Which is why I waste my talents on it.

Most games put my mind to sleep.

Now if I can just raise the bar of talent in the game a little teeny bit, I'll get even more brain excitement out of it.

You seem to think I'm beating my chest just for the sake of beating my chest. I'm not, I assure you.

If I have to beat better performance out of the community, I will.

I crave challenge, I demand challenge. If it's with what I call "GiJoe for Men" then so be it.

I know millions of men and women that get all agaga over their virtualized avatar in online games like Second life and WOW.

To each their own.

By the way, what cancer-cure have you discovered today?

thehod wrote:Stelek wrote out why he thought the metagame doesnt exist rather than the usual one liners.

good job Stelek.

Thanks.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't believe in the meta game based on what I said in my original post. There are far too many people playing in small local groups that are for the most part completely disconnected from one another.

What if you play in a store where the gamers there shun the use of powerful builds? Meta game that. Sure you can go ahead and power game there in the beginning but soon it's quite possible no one will want to play you. To me this type of environment eschews the meta gaming.

What's YOUR definition of "metagame", GBF? 'Cause to me, your second statement defines metagame - out-of-game elements affecting in-game behavior. In this case, NOT bringing a club when you go baby-seal hunting. And why not bring a club? Because of potential out-of-game effects, namely the loss of anyone to play with.

Janthkin wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't believe in the meta game based on what I said in my original post. There are far too many people playing in small local groups that are for the most part completely disconnected from one another.

What if you play in a store where the gamers there shun the use of powerful builds? Meta game that. Sure you can go ahead and power game there in the beginning but soon it's quite possible no one will want to play you. To me this type of environment eschews the meta gaming.

What's YOUR definition of "metagame", GBF? 'Cause to me, your second statement defines metagame - out-of-game elements affecting in-game behavior. In this case, NOT bringing a club when you go baby-seal hunting. And why not bring a club? Because of potential out-of-game effects, namely the loss of anyone to play with.

Yep. Suposedly, another iteration of the metagame is when people play Drinkhammer and how different their in-game behavior is. I wouldn't know cuz I'm not gonna try that with Kroot-heavy Tau.

Here is a definition of the meta game by Jeff Cunningham from the Magic Academy posted on Saturday, January 6, 2007. While it applies to MtG I think we can draw a lot of parallels with the current state of 40k.

The metagame, essentially, refers to what everyone else is playing.

A game of Constructed Magic has (at least) two players. At least 120 cards are active. While you have full control of the selection of your own cards, your deck never exists in a vacuum. One half of a game of Magic is a constant, and the other is a variable that changes with every opponent. The consideration of this variable, in deckbuilding, is a consideration of the metagame.

Let me give you a basic example. Every week Elliot plays against Shawna, with her Goblins deck, and Kendra, with her Burn deck. Here, it is clear that, rather than playing a deck that is good in a general sense, it is most important to play a deck that is good in the specific sense; whatever beats Goblins and Burn the most. That this fact motivates the deck Elliot choose to play, the cards he choose to play in it, and the amount of them he chooses to include, is a consideration of the metagame.

In tournament situations, the metagame is rarely so clean cut. Fields are larger and less defined. Rather than a small amount of friends playing a few exact decks, it's a mass of strangers playing decks that fall somewhere between predictable and unpredictable.

What exactly happens in these big, real, cases? Let's say that I suddenly announce a new Constructed format, Core Set Only Constructed, and open it up to a large number of active and interested tournament players. At first, collectively, players will not have a sense of the natural best configurations of cards – the strongest synergies and most effective strategies. As one player makes a breakthrough, so will others. With time, and often word of mouth, these naturally good decks become better known, until sometimes it is thought that a format's best decks are mostly evident. We can call this factor format definition.

Another factor is also playing out. Beyond just learning more about a format itself (a collection of cards), a player also becomes increasingly aware of the specific decks other players are making. This motivates him not just to design a better deck in terms of stronger general strategy, but also to factor in what these other players are doing, so that he can beat it. This is called skew.

These are the two primary scales used to assess a metagame.

A defined metagame is one where it is generally clear what decks will be played, and the proportions in which they will be present. This can be by word of mouth, tournament trends (if a deck did well in a largely publicized tournament last week, you can expect to see it this week), or by the sheer obviousness and strength of a potential strategy. Elliot's case is an example of a perfectly defined metagame. A more realistic example would be a late-season National Championship tournament. Since these tournaments happen week by week, the influence of “tech” (defined in our Magic slang dictionary as “secret cards or information that help a player win”) is diffused, and players are able to generally predict what they will see at their own tournament by what was at last week's tournament.

So the basic definition of the meta game is 'what everyone else is playing'. That is a broad term which can apply for example to two players that only play each other, a large store that runs leagues and campaigns, or a national level tournament with 'top' players from all over a country. Basically the gist is that what others play affects what you play. Is this necessarily true in all cases? No, of course not because not everyone solely derives their enjoyment of the hobby based upon winning. There are a lot of people that pick their armies based on the fluff and/or appearance. There might be this one cool model someone sees and that is the hook that starts them on a new army. This definition of the meta game assumes people pick their armies to win and thus choose a codex and units that are best at this against the vast majority of other armies.

Here is the definition of meta gaming taken from Wikipedia:

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.

Sounds a bit under handed if you ask me. Here is a better definition that appears further on in Wikipedia and applies well to the 40k tournament scene:

Adaptation to a specific gaming environment
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame. A player who is aware of the metagame for their particular gaming environment may make play choices that are objectively inferior for the game in general, but are optimized against the play styles of the majority of players they are likely to face in that specific competitive arena. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits and which feature customized decks of cards, sets of miniatures or other playing pieces for each player. The premier example[citation needed] of this kind of environment is the tournament scene for the card game Magic: The Gathering.

So for example if I knew I would be facing mostly Zilla Nidz and tri falcon armies at a specific tournament I might be able to improve my overall odds by building a list tailored to beat those two specific lists. This is what I believe most people think of when they use the term meta gaming. Is it really effective? Only if you can show that the most commonly fielded internet lists such as Zilla Nidz and tri falcs are consistently beaten by other lists that can exploit their inherent weaknesses. So I ask what are those lists? I am not saying they don't exist, I would just like to see a few examples. I know that mech Tau and mech eldar were rightly feared at the last UK GT heats and there were some SM players that tailored their lists to specifically beat these... and they did, so it can be done but I think it falls well outside the norm.

The vast majority of players don't go to tournaments... it's all about 'friendly' get togethers at someone's home or the local store. You can say that because Johnny decided to field two whirlwinds to counter Tommy's ork horde that is meta gaming but to me that just shows the inherent problem with a term that is much too broad to be of any practical use. To me the term meta gaming is in fact so broad that an advocate can make anything inclusive to it... and that is just not possible. If I were to play in a large national tournament and win all three rounds by massacres with the 13th Company versus L&tD you would say I was using Wulfen to exploit an inherent weakness of mutants, while I would just say I dig werewolves.

G

Stelek wrote:You can if you wish call me colossally arrogant. Or bored as hell of beating scrubs year in and year out. It's only been a DECADE of scrub hell for me, but thanks for noticing my obvious pain over the issue.

I don't know... the definition of scrub that I'm most familiar with is the one explained here: http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

It's a good read, but to sumarize,

"<the scrub's> problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing."

You have these self-imposed rules. You refuse to be friendly. Call it social engineering if you will, but at the end of the day, it's about being a decent person. You refuse to bring a top-painted army. You want to win, you've identified what it will take for you to win, but you're afraid to pull the trigger. You're afraid to give up these final fallbacks, the reasons why you haven't won it all. Because as long as you can whine about someone else using a pro-painted army, and that's why they won, and you didn't, you're still up on your self-delusional grandstand. But you still haven't won, and it's because of your own mental blocks about doing what it takes to win. That makes you a scrub, regardless of how great a player you are within your self-defined limitations.

---

Of course there is a metagame, and you can plan for it. At the adepticon gladiator this year, I planned around the metagame. Knowing that titans and super-heavies are allowed means that you can draw the conclusion that other people will bring tools to kill super-heavies and titans. So, you go two-deep into the thought process, and realize that if most players will be skewing their lists in favour of killing big-ass stuff, then bringing nothing but little stuff will give you an advantage. That is metagaming. At least according to the wikipedia definition,

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.

You're right, there isn't a metagame like there is in Magic. There is no "this will be the top deck of the month, so if I bring this other deck, I'll win 66% of my games against it." Magic is cheaper and less time-intensive to make changes based on how the wind is blowing at any given time. (Well, maybe not cheaper...) A catachan player can't just switch over to playing marines without a serious time investment in making a new army. And, for all that the internet will propose that a certain army build is superior, you still have to deal with the fact that most players don't have the models to make that list, and it's a lot harder to get them than it is to buy Magic singles.

But, just because there isn't that sort of metagame doesn't mean that there is no metagame. It's just not the same as Magic's.

Wait, so to not be a scrub by your definition, I should do any of the following:

Know the staff personally, schmooze them before and after the tournament, and skew calls and player placements in my favor.

Bring a propainted army and say it's mine. GW's been catching on that those of us unwilling to cheat don't like cheaters being rewarded.

Despite the fact that I hate painting and don't have the physical ability to get a propainted army complete in the time it takes to get one painted before the main rules or the army rules change (roughly 2-3 years), even if I could get past my physical inability to paint figs I don't as a result of lack of painting have propainting skills.

Who said I refuse to be friendly? I have my own personality, and I don't mesh well with strangers right away. Never have, never will. You seem to think when I say social engineering I mean be a dickhead. Well kind sir, I mean nothing of the sort. I mean being obtuse, shallow, transparently friendly. I have moral and ethical standards that prohibit me from cheating or having the appearance of cheating in order to win. Being deceitful towards your opponents in the hope they won't screw your soft scores, or the judges for the same reason...is entirely within that category. Either you understand this, or you blather on about me being a jerk. I'm certainly not going to compromise my ethics for a game. Bobby Fischer didn't. No, I am not saying I'm Bobby Fischer. I'm just saying, you do not have to lower your standards just because everyone else does.

What kind of a win is a cheaters win?

Magics metagame is very limited. Most of what you, and what GBF posted, make metagamers cry out in pain. Knowing what most enemy decks are going to be and playing to beat those decks isn't metagaming, that's far too simple. It's just a strategy, and saying it's more than that is putting a far greater level of intelligence into magic players than actually exists.

Read the internet, bring the internet decks.

Metagaming? That's like saying 'DO I want french fries with that??' is pure philosophy.

It isn't.

Oh and when you want to have a rational discussion with someone, calling them a scrub is probably the worst way to do it.

If I'd have done it, I'd be banned for a day. Maybe you can get the treatment and watch what you fething say to people you don't know.

Anyway, your concept of a metagame is seriously flawed, but it's what is expected from a layman using the laymans definition from wiki and magic. I thought I'd gone over this already.

Oh and since you've obviously never played magic at a tournament level, magic is far more expensive.

Calling me a scrub. Quite amusing really. Hopefully it won't take 5 days for a mod to note the personal attack.

Stelek wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:Seriously. Why waste your prodigious talents on this game? A bit of advice. I've been around horrifically smart and capable people, in several walks of life. The truly gifted have one thing in common. They don't have to talk about it. Because other people do.

They do? On the internawt? Can you show me the post where someone got their ass handed to them and they went on and on about it?

I'm curious, why didn't you put this post into Cent99's 'I won the gladiator at adepticon' post?

Riiight. A bit of advice. Keep the hypocrisy to a minimum.

I've been lurking most of the last decade. Now I'm not.

Enjoy it, or don't. I got tired of the real one sided metagames DOD ran (back when I was in the military) and I really didn't want to be a chess champion (because Chess is so predictable it bores me) but this game really makes my mind work.

Which is why I waste my talents on it.

Most games put my mind to sleep.

Now if I can just raise the bar of talent in the game a little teeny bit, I'll get even more brain excitement out of it.

You seem to think I'm beating my chest just for the sake of beating my chest. I'm not, I assure you.

If I have to beat better performance out of the community, I will.

I crave challenge, I demand challenge. If it's with what I call "GiJoe for Men" then so be it.

I know millions of men and women that get all agaga over their virtualized avatar in online games like Second life and WOW.

To each their own.

By the way, what cancer-cure have you discovered today?

Spoken like a true narcissist. But as you mentioned, to each their own.

I'm a narcissist now?

Sad to say, I'm not.

"So that the narcissist can think he seems grand, he must make you seem insignificant by comparison. This is why malignant narcissists act as though it would kill them to compliment you, to thank you for anything, to tell you they love you, to listen to you, to say they're sorry for something, to give you credit for being right about anything, to put their arm around you, to take an interest in anything you do . . . and let's just cut to the chase: they act like it would kill them give you one bit of gratification. They won't even look at you: they pay more attention to a fly on the wall."

I compliment others.
I thank others.
I tell others I love them.
I'm obviously listening to you.
I give credit where credit is due.
I'm physically affectionate.
I take interest in all my friends and family do.
I give gratification to those that need it, when they need it...not 3 years later as an afterthought, like most members of society tend to do.
I'm obviously giving lots of attention to strangers I've never met, and in fact, do not know the names of.

Sorry, who's the narcissist? If you don't know the definition, don't use it.

Maybe you can go and think you're crafty like Redbeard, and find a definition to meet your predefined insult.

Most people call that crass manipulation, but it's hard to judge what others think on the internet.

To each his own concept, I suppose.

Can we go back to the topic or is it just pointless for me to post because of the mob mentality?

Stelek wrote:
What kind of a win is a cheaters win?

There's a difference between cheating, and making an effort. There is a middle ground between bringing a pro-painted army and claiming it's your own, and bringing an army that's not going to get you points. I believe that you get a painting score regardless of who painted it, it's just that pro armies aren't eligible for certain awards.

Likewise, there is a middle ground between being instant-best-friends with your opponent, and making them leave the game feeling like they'd been punched.

You don't have to compromise your standards in order to make your opponent feel like he was more than just a bowling pin for you to knock down on your way to victory.

Magics metagame is very limited. Most of what you, and what GBF posted, make metagamers cry out in pain. Knowing what most enemy decks are going to be and playing to beat those decks isn't metagaming, that's far too simple. It's just a strategy, and saying it's more than that is putting a far greater level of intelligence into magic players than actually exists.

Read the internet, bring the internet decks.

Metagaming? That's like saying 'DO I want french fries with that??' is pure philosophy.


Oh and since you've obviously never played magic at a tournament level, magic is far more expensive.

Given that many philosophy majors end up saying that.... but anyway. The good magic players don't just read the internet and bring the internet decks, they make subtle changes to the internet decks to account for the gradual shift in that metagame. I used to play Magic competatively, back before the pro-tour, when national rankings were in the Duelist magazine. And I had a top-25 rank, so I do have some idea what I'm taking about there.

Oh and when you want to have a rational discussion with someone, calling them a scrub is probably the worst way to do it.

If I'd have done it, I'd be banned for a day. Maybe you can get the treatment and watch what you fething say to people you don't know.

Calling me a scrub. Quite amusing really. Hopefully it won't take 5 days for a mod to note the personal attack.

Yeah yeah yeah, you're consistantly walking that line. If I crossed it by calling you out and get punished for it, oh well.

Amen Redbeard. I had been searching for a word to describe his delusions and the word 'SCRUB' fits perfectly.

Here is someone who complains about not being challenged, but won't leave Utah to play. Once a year in Vegas is not leaving Utah. Now I managed to clip Utah in a car ride once, but as I recall there wasn't a big population talent pool to draw from.

He complains about having no challenges, but won't come to any event where the better players have gathered all becuase of imaginary selfimposed rules that keep him from playing any other person who has questioned him. He regails us with his uber-weak list he brought to play a team tourney game against the Ohio boys. Oh wait I've hamstrung myself by bringing a weak list so if I don't win the list is the fault. He's to afraid to bring a 'good' list because then when he lost he would have no recourse.

He says he has to do all these unethical activities to win a GT, implying that everyone who has ever won has done so unethically. It's a pathetic way for him to wrap his brain around the idea that he's not that good. Ever consider that by getting horid soft scores it keeps you from playing the better players, forever picking up the scraps by playing in the sea of goo that is located just below the top players tables.

Every win was a yawn and every lose he was cheated.

Redbeard you are dead on in your estimates of him. He even admits that he won't win Best General because he doesn't bother will all the lower tier objectives in a scenario. Once again creating ficticious rules to hamstring his ability to win Best General.

It's easier to say you could always win, when you never try and I would be the King of Thailand if I ever left Illinois.


Now as to metagame, of course there is. If I go to a tourney and I know a few of the top players in Chicago will be there I know what to bring to expect to do well. If I know certain players won't be there, I know I can break out an experimental list. I metagame more the player and the list they are most likely to bring.

I'm not seeing how that's a personal attack, Stelek. He brought forth a definition of the term that many of us here have seen before (ie, he didn't just trot it out randomly), mentioned traits that you've described about yourself in the past and then applied them to the definition.

Of course, feel free to PM Yakface or any of the other mods about this as well.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't believe in the meta game based on what I said in my original post. There are far too many people playing in small local groups that are for the most part completely disconnected from one another.

What if you play in a store where the gamers there shun the use of powerful builds? Meta game that. Sure you can go ahead and power game there in the beginning but soon it's quite possible no one will want to play you. To me this type of environment eschews the meta gaming.

I do realize that there are certain lists we tend to see a lot of at regional and national events but by no means does that mean they are the best. In fact they are really quite boring to play against.

I do to some degree respect a player's acheivement when they do well at a high level but really these events are often by attended by the same people who have the time and money to do so. To claim they are the best in the game is silly to me. Maybe the Ard Boyz tournament is the closest we will see to crowning a true meta gaming fiend since it was broadly advertised and accessible to everyone (at least in the first two rounds)... but seeing that some people who came for the Baltimore GT that weekend and were invited to play in the final even though they did not qualify nixes that concept in my opinion. So to say that these so called top gamers define how we as a whole play is silly. Certainly the rules are not written to tailor towards their need to win.

Just because there are some so called top tiered lists such Zilla Nidz and tri Falc armies doe not mean they are actually the best or that most people play them. To me they are hand me down lists from the internet to be copied by players that lack creativity and solely play to win. Think about it honestly and I believe you will agree. I would not touch one of these armies with a ten foot pole due to the stigma associated with them. These armies also tend to be no brainers at best... take as much as possible of whatever it the most powerful and minimize the use of less powerful units.

Ummm, not to call the kettle black, but your description of your Vanilla Marines is frighteningly close to Mauleed pattern Marines; another kind of internet spammed army. Instead of some Assault Marines, you took some Terminators; you still use them as your assault elements. Your army looks a lot like 70% shooty and 30% assault based and spammed Las/Plas and I'll bet your Devs had Heavy Bolters and/or Missile Launchers.

It's fine it that's what you play. I just don't understand the soapbox attitude when you yourself do the same thing you are critical of others doing. The only difference is you do it with Marines.

Forget the museum, that's for thinkers and brain-sweaters. I'll take the aquarium, thanks.

Pretty fish.

Malfred: Unbalanced people DO give us flavor! But take it too far and you get the hefty dude who dresses up as Tron. A little too unbalanced and the wheels come flying off. But in general, you are of course right.

Hordini: You as well are right. Without a commonly used definition, this thread literally has no basis for continuing. It's becoming apples and oranges. Seems there are at least 2 definitions for metagame here.

dienekes96: Little confused from one part of your post. What do you do for DoD? Do you know the papers stelek is talking about? Do you have other references along that vein? If I am totally lost by what you meant, I'm sure you'll let me know. Thanks.

Green Blow Fly: Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the metagame doesn't exist b/c of what could be described as some sort of "locational disconnect"; in that the "flavor" of the game varies greatly from place to place? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it DOES exist, merely with regional variation?

Me personally, I find it hard to say a metagame does't exist, since it is always possible to examine a subject critically. One thing I have noticed is that some are refering to the using of exterior information into the game to make decisions. Seems to me that that could cover some unrelated things, such as mere distraction. Someone care to clear it up a little for me?

Redbeard wrote:
Given that many philosophy majors end up saying that....

Stelek...you realize I don't need to bring up my own history. Other people point that out when you start making your special brand of ad hominem attacks. I just point out when you're making silly statements.

You want everybody to view you as some sort of authority, when really, you're just another loud noise trying to win arguments through volume and quantity instead of quality.

I'm just afraid that some people might actually think that you know what you're talking about, instead of just blowing your own horn.

This is supposed to be a discussion about meta gaming and whether or not it really exists. Stelek I agree with what you say here but often I think you draw out the negative feedback... just focus on the discussion and you will do well. Keep it impersonal and no one can attack you. If someone cannot think of a valid response and can only lash out with a snipe then shame on them and it will be apparent to everyone.

In response to the crack about my vanilla Marines I have often said they were based upon Mauleed's to a degree but certainly not exclusively. We see something someone else has done and it influences us to a degree... I am sure you would call that meta gaming but I have always said that a static gun line SM army has lots of problems in a tournament setting due to their inherent lack of mobility. So if I was really meta gaming I could have dropped one tactical squad and used the points to buy some rhinos. Also I like to run two Librarians but a commander would be very helpful with Rites of Battle, which can greatly enhance a SAFH SM army. To be honest a lot of people have played Marines the same way with little if any variation for a long time now. At the end of the day there is only so much you can do with vanilla Space Marines. To say that terminators are a substitute for assault marines is a bit silly really. I field tactical terminators so they can shoot as well as assault and often they do much better shooting. I have a couple of power fists in two of the tactical squads... so really my army is 100% shooty but can also assault if necessary. I have had games where charging ALL the tactical Marines into one enemy unit was decisive. Is that meta gaming? Like I said there is only so much you can do with Marines at the end of the day and I have fielded 5/6 man las/plas squads since I first started playing... that was before I came to forums such as these... maybe the meta game is so broad that it is part of our collective unconscious and affects us at levels we cannot even begin to comprehend.

G

Would anyone like to throw their definition of the metagame into the discussion?

For me, it's being aware of general trends in the game rules and army compositions, in order to discover units and tactics that improve your chance of success.

There is not one metagame, so you need to judge it according to your playing milieu. A GT player will look at the metagame differently to a local club player.

Point is, the army you play for the most part is very commonly seen on the internet, intentional or not. Your previous comments bordered on lowbrow insults to those who play Godzilla or Triholofield armies.

I think there is a type of meta game. A lot of it (at least in the past, especially 3rd edition) was based on defeating MEQ styled armies.

A huge area, that does not seem to be addressed as to yet, is how the meta game is being channelled. Groups the developed missions for events such as Adepticon truly change how one developes an army. Given GBF's SAFH Marine army, missions can and will drastically affect its' effectiveness.

Whether or not you think there is or is not a 'metagame' in 40K, it will be interesting to see how many people flock to armylist builds for tourney play when 5th edition comes around.

Killkrazy I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. There is no one metagame. Personally I don't believe in the concept but I don't harbor any grudges to those that do.



"Point is, the army you play for the most part is very commonly seen on the internet, intentional or not. Your previous comments bordered on lowbrow insults to those who play Godzilla or Triholofield armies."

And as I said this is how a lot of people play SM regardless of whether they read the internet or not. I think a lot of people figure out Marines on their own after playing the army long enough against a variety of opponents and other lists. There is not much value currently in fielding full squads of tactical Space Marines or Devastators or terminators. Remember when you could field 20 Chaos Space Marines in one squad? Did anyone get bent out of shape because no fielded them this large?

What I said in regards to Zilla Nidz and tri falcs was not intended as an insult. In fact a lot of people feel the same. I was using these two army lists to make a point about the concept behind meta gaming.

G