http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net SM codex).

I had three games - vs. eldar, Deathwing and Guard. As I have always said the meta game is more fiction than fact as far as I am concerned. In fact I will go so far as to say there is no meta game and this tournament made me feel more certain of this self proclamation. If you are familiar with my Blood Ravens I rank them as a top tiered army list. Two librarians with terminator command squads, lots of 6 man las/plas squads and some speeders thrown in as well... plus a couple of potent Dev squads to boot.

At Adepticon my terminators were god like smashing the enemy down with ease. At this tournament yesterday they still performed well but did not win games for me like they have done so often in the past. Basically I was playing against units I had no experience versus and the lack of experience was telling. When I played in the invitational at Adepticon it was a lot of tri holo Falcons all the way. So gehy really.

Anyways two units that stood out yesterday was Belial's command squad - terminators with four base attacks with lightning claws (banner) were just brutal... the other was a Witch Hunter Inquistorial command squad loaded out with crusaders and mancatchers. My termies had their hands full with both of these units. I had to kill the Inq. unit with lots of shooting and it took both of my termie squads to wipe out Belial with his Deathwing.

G]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298765.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298765.page GMT WH Inquisitor Retinue for the first time Friday kitted out much the same way. Of course, she was wielding a power stake which was something of a dead weight, but I think she managed to make her points back if you exclude the Landraider she was riding in.
Did you post a battle report?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298793.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298793.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298801.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298801.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298853.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298853.page GMT
All metagaming is, is tooling your list against the popular/expected opposition. If you continue going to this local store, you may notice a trend in the armies they bring. Metagaming is simply tooling your lists or taking the optimal list against the popular/expected opposition.

Many people don't use the word correctly, it was actually coined by Richard Garfield creator of Magic: the Gathering to describe how he initially conceptualized Magic tournaments being run but evolved to a somewhat different meaning.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298858.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298858.page GMT
Best players don't do this. Average ones, do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298875.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298875.page GMT
1. By your post, do you indicate that the concept of metagaming is invalid, indvisable, or merely a push toward mediocrity?
2. Or, rather, are you against the idea of metagaming toward the popular or expected?
3. I see the difference between metagaming and preparation as being a matter of degree. I could see a player preparing elements in his army to face certain things he knows he will find in competitive play (AP3 weaponry for MEQ's, templates for hordes, etc...) as being "prepared". You can take it further by gearing your army totally to face certain opponents. Like I said, a matter of degrees.
4. SO, in your opinion, what DO "Best players" do?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298888.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298888.page GMT 40K has national, regional, and even local flavors. The metagame simply revolves around army building, and what kind of opponents you expect to see.

Locally, almost everyone who plays regularly has experienced it. Somebody comes up with an army list that trounces all the locals, until someone else comes up with a counter. Thank kind of thing.

At a regional level, you've got the guys who travel to RTTs and the like. You'll usually see a core group of players at all or most of the events in a certain region, and the metagame consists of them trying to outplan each other.

The national metagame is quite new, with the GW Tournament Circuit, the 'Ard Boyz tourneys, and events such as AdeptiCon, that have a national draw.

At the risk of sounding self-serving...based on the results of last year, the midwest regional metagame is currently somewhat dominant. Assuming that everyone is metagaming based on their own local or regional biases, its pretty significant that the of the events on the GW Tournament Circuit, I think something like 7 or 8 of 10 were won by players from the Midwest. At the 'Ard Boyz finals, all three place-winners came from Midwest states. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298890.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298890.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298891.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298891.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298892.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298892.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298894.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298894.page GMT
1. By your post, do you indicate that the concept of metagaming is invalid, indvisable, or merely a push toward mediocrity?
2. Or, rather, are you against the idea of metagaming toward the popular or expected?
3. I see the difference between metagaming and preparation as being a matter of degree. I could see a player preparing elements in his army to face certain things he knows he will find in competitive play (AP3 weaponry for MEQ's, templates for hordes, etc...) as being "prepared". You can take it further by gearing your army totally to face certain opponents. Like I said, a matter of degrees.
4. SO, in your opinion, what DO "Best players" do?[/quote]

1. Invalid. There is no metagaming in 40k. It took a stupid man to put it out there for everyone to rally around a catchy phrase. Doesn't make it right.
2. In the last ten years of grand tournaments I've been surprised a total of twice. I don't rely on the internet for my lists, I see the codex and I can make killer lists immediately--far better than the usual off the mighty internet.

When was I surprised, you might wonder?

First, when a Tyranid player faced me with like 90 ripper swarms, and I had no idea if I could kill them all before they got to me. As it turns out, my old CA2002 120 Sister army killed every last one. It was still a surprise though--it was a list I'd thought about but judged A) too pain in the assish to actually build, and B) not tournament worthy. Despite losing to me, my opponent won his next 4 games.

Second, when I fought a Nurgle army with my Swordwind. Ever seen 5 Aspect Warrior units charge 7 plague marines, do no wounds, and all run away...and ended up winning anyway despite between us there was 1 dead model (a banshee of mine)? Yeah, that was surprising...50 aspect warriors bouncing. I figured it was g-d telling me he just had to even out the luck he's given me over the years, and that was the time he chose to do it.

3. I play a different game of 40k than most do. I can see the flow of the game from the get go. I can see your best choices, and how to deal with them if you make them...but most players make the wrong choices, and the games end quickly. I've been accused of alot of things over the years, many of them true to one extent or another, but there's always one thing that irks me--if I crush the powerlists the judges have been so kind to set me up with, and the eventual winners play wussy battleforce armies vs wussy battleforce armies...which golden demon painter do I have to bribe and which 'make me a better person' drugs do I need to take so I too can win? I can't prove I'm better and that my way is superior, because I won't pay for golden demon painting (and claim it as my own, as many winners have done in the past) nor will I take anti-psychotics.

Anyway, I see attempting to 'metagame' as believing you have a choice in what armies you will play against (you don't), that those armies will be run the way you would run them (they never are), that your dice actually have a serious place to play (they don't), and that when it's all over and you go 3-1-1 or 3-2 and you say 'if only I'd have...' that THAT is some kind of metagaming.

You want to metagame? You cannot simply play one army, and then see what the top 3 lists are and decide how your list is going to beat them. That's not metagaming, that's powergaming and there really is a difference.

4. I can't say what the rest of the countries 'best' do, as I haven't met any. I've seen alot of the same guys go to tournaments, and funny thing is I know who they are by their faces--and they pretend like their king shit, but when they see me they look the other way because far more often than not I've played them before and that was 'the year'. Or so I've had a few with balls tell me, the year they got run over by yours truly. 5x15=65 players. Remove the first game, and I'd say the second...and that's 3x15=45 'good' players that also crushed their first two opponents. Then they got matched up to me, and they got bounced from the top ten tables to the middle tables. I'll relate an experience to you from last years GT. My buddy and I played the guys who won the team tournament. My buddy is a bright cookie, and if I didn't have alot more experience than him he'd probably be beating me alot more than he currently does. i.e. I can't just beat him with brains. At any rate, these two guys came with 'THE LIST'. The one that was going to just own. They had practiced, alot. They had armies that complemented each other. Us? Well...I hadn't played 40k in like 5 months, and my Eldar were ok but were certainly not a top army (by my standards)...and I'd never played them under the new rules until that day. What I actually fielded at the GT was different than the team tournament, because the list was so bad. Anyway, we're playing these 'hard nuts' and in the end it comes down to a morale check--which I failed. Game. My buddy and I took crap armies (he took Sisters, btw) and we did exceedingly well. More than I expected, by far. All of the guys we played were dancing around me on the top ten tables on Saturday. Then they took a dive, and I was standing around taking the internet's favorite powerlists on the chin. I didn't have an optimized army, but at least when I had just my army and some 6 games under my belt...I beat the guys on table 5 and table 4 in the last two games on Sunday. My army was, and is, totally different from any other I've seen. I play it totally different. It is a balanced army, now. Back then, it wasn't really. Does that have anything to do with metagaming? No. My 'best play' is this:

I play unique armies. You won't see my armies elsewhere. (Well, you might now that I've been spamming Dakka with them.) I play EVERY army. Often. My local opponents have had to get better armies and learn my way of playing because just setting them up and running/shooting at each other doesn't cut it against me. It does for alot of 'best' players, because that's expected. I don't do the expected, or at least, I don't think I do. Most of my friends are extremely intelligent, and can cut their way through most if not all of the chaff players that exist both locally and at the GT level--and I do my best to show them every list, every trick, everything you can do with an army and to an army.

In short, I try my best to give my local opponents the benefit of my experience. They don't have to take my suggestions, but I think they realize my suggestions are there not to make a 'internet list' or fit a money requirement aka 'battleforce armies' but to show them what a strong army list really is and why I'd fear it if I ran into it.
Most listen to me, and my local gaming has gotten quite a bit better of late. Nasty armies are showing up, and while alot of people whine they're playing an 'Andy army'...it's not like I designed it from scratch. Call me a data miner if you like. I can 'see' what is good, and what is actually great. If you run good, no matter how great a general you might be...I run great, and I can beat your generalship. That leaves most players at a severe disadvantage.

It's part of why I don't really enjoy going to local tournaments anymore.
It's also part of why I only enjoy going to GW (and not indy) events, I don't expect serious competition except from those that know me (and can exploit my weaknesses...not that they tell me them lol) but I really do like seeing the armies in person.

For me, a GT is 30-45 minutes of gaming and an hour to an hour and a half of wandering around the art gallery.

It's probably the closest I get to actual metagaming, when I look for surprise armies. I usually don't see any, sadly. They are pretty though, and that makes me happy--it's what makes it worth it, despite my constant carping to the contrary. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298918.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298918.page GMT 40K has national, regional, and even local flavors. The metagame simply revolves around army building, and what kind of opponents you expect to see. [/quote]

I could not agree less than I do with that statement.

It's just too simple. Metagaming is very complex, and your definition doesn't meet the requirements IMO.

[quote=Centurian99]Locally, almost everyone who plays regularly has experienced it. Somebody comes up with an army list that trounces all the locals, until someone else comes up with a counter. That kind of thing. [/quote]

So, all of my armies? I heard this about my Eldar. So I played Legion of the Damned. Same thing, it's "your army". So I played something else. Etc etc etc. Now people realize it isn't my armies. I can play trash (compared to my usual power builds) and still win.

There's a level you are talking about, where nidzilla shows up and everyone loses. That's because those players playing each other have no skills, no concept of tactics, and no idea how close to chess 40k actually is. So it's just an army list that's overwhelming for an army list, and doesn't ever touch the metagame.

[quote=Centurian99]At a regional level, you've got the guys who travel to RTTs and the like. You'll usually see a core group of players at all or most of the events in a certain region, and the metagame consists of them trying to outplan each other. [/quote]

Funny. The Utah RTT's aren't like that. I haven't heard anyone at my FLGS talk about what people are running at other stores. We could care less. When you suck, what does it matter if you have a good list or not?

Same with all the other states around here.

[quote=Centurian99]The national metagame is quite new, with the GW Tournament Circuit, the 'Ard Boyz tourneys, and events such as AdeptiCon, that have a national draw. [/quote]

Not sure I'd call that a metagame, for several reasons.

One, they're disconnected.

[quote=Centurian99]At the risk of sounding self-serving...based on the results of last year, the midwest regional metagame is currently somewhat dominant. Assuming that everyone is metagaming based on their own local or regional biases, its pretty significant that the of the events on the GW Tournament Circuit, I think something like 7 or 8 of 10 were won by players from the Midwest. At the 'Ard Boyz finals, all three place-winners came from Midwest states. [/quote]

Don't worry, I like cocky. The california guys think they're hot shit too. You do realize I'm dying to meet someone can beat me, because it's been 10 years of 'win 3 today, win 2 tomorrow, watch some dickface win the overall then go see how bad my sportsmanship score is this year for tabling people in under an hour'? I don't think I will, but you never know. You guys could be just awesome. Of course, I've beaten sooo many guys who think their hot shit because they placed at a GT last year and they're "sorry" I won't win this year it's not even funny. Just for the record, so no one is confused--I found Cent's adepticon win laughable. I don't want him to be offended, but taking a cookie cutter army and beating scrubs who have yet to figure out how to kill a TMC list after it's been around since...forever (what, 8 years or more), is not part of the metagame. I designed my chaos list to annihilate my nids. It can table the TMC list in 3 turns. I saw alot of chaos players taking absolutely crap lists to adepticon (to the point where I'd cry over how bad all of them were) and losing in a big way. I wrote a tactica just to get decent chaos armies out there, and it's always people taking crappy lists and hoping generalship will see them through. You know who you are. 40k doesn't work that way. If you run into a decent opponent, you lose with a crap list. If you want to metagame something, you need to metagame this:

Lists beat noobs, battleforce armies, and the painters.

Sure, you can cheat and social engineer and buy paint jobs...but in the end, if you don't do any of that...

YOU have to win.

Cent99 believes he got his win because people were 'metagaming' against Titans and he brought MC...wait, what?? Lascannon armies don't kill TMC? How the fuck?

If you metagame to understand the game, to understand the rules, to understand how every army plays against every other army in the power builds for those lists...which 99% of the players out there don't...and then you get a real grasp on tactics (sorry, refused flank...split...gunline...rush...those are NOT 'tactics' those are strategies for divisional level combat and UP not bloody company level battles)...maybe, just maybe, you'll see where I'm coming from. Toss in years of experience playing all these different armies and you'll almost be READY to START metagaming, in my honest opinion.

Sorry for picking you out Cent. It isn't anything personal. Just using you as an example. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298925.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298925.page GMT
It isn't even close to entering into metagaming.

Hell, out of the box ideas are great...but if you don't know the basics of game theory (most here probably don't) and don't understand you have to run scenarios, statistics, theory, and analysis all within a undefined and essentially randomized set of values...man I could go on and on.

Most of the discussions here aren't metagaming, they're just discussions that could maybe possibly be related to one of those values.

Just ONE!

There are millions out there. I think pretty deep, and I'm still in the shallow end. Maybe in another lifetime I'll really 'get it'.

Hell, is 40K a zero-sum or a non-zero-sum game??

The combinatorial explosions that occur in every game of 40K is more than enough to keep me going for years and years on this subject, so I better stop now. lol

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298930.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298930.page GMT
In this regard, a player might analyse the results of 5 years of UK GTs to find if there are changes or trends in popular/successful armies.

He might draw conclusions that would lead him to change the army he takes to the next GT. There certainly are players who do this kind of exercise.

His conclusions may be flawed however that does not destroy the basic principle.

I would agree that the majority of players use the term loosely.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298946.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298946.page GMT
I also have to assume I disagree with Stelek's notion of what the metagame is, though I find it hard to pick the substance out of the heavy icing of self praise.

[i]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, using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions.[/i]

If we take this definition (from reference.com) to be valid, then I think there's clearly a metagame, and clearly some amount of benefit to be drawn from it.

I'd consider list building to be part of the game, and obviously so is actually playing it. But as you "play" the listbuilding portion of the game, you can (and virtually everyone does), try to factor in the popular builds and popular tactics of the day.

It is NOT metagaming to play all the armies, look at all the lists, and learn how they all play. This is all observations of the rules themselves, and thus internal to the game.

If you're deriving answers from the rules of the game, that's "the game."

If you're deriving answers from outside the rules of the game, that's "the metagame." Observing the most popular lists of the day is outside the game rules.

[quote]Best players don't do this. Average ones, do.[/quote]

Wrong. The best players stay ahead of the metagame. Average ones define it.

Take yourself as an example, Stelek. You're an incredibly great player. Incredibly. Perhaps the best in history. When you build a list, don't you make sure it has answers to all the top lists of the day? Skimmers? Monstrous Creatures? Etc?

Of course you do, I've seen you do it on these very forums.

Now, I know, I'm wrong. I don't know how yet, but I'm going to guess the explanation has to do with how nobody at GTs has any skills or integrity, and they pay for painted armies.

Regardless, as we know, your mind, and thus your listbuilding technique, is beyond the ken of a mortal such as myself. But all I have to go on is my inferior intellect, and to my observation, it looks like you partake of the metagame even as you fail to understand the correct definition of the term.

Honestly, dude, reading your posts fills me with glee. You may be the most colossally arrogant person I've ever seen on the internets. And THAT is really saying something.

Your blog is seriously a thing of beauty.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298947.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298947.page GMT So why don't you win the Best General award?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298951.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298951.page GMT HQ and you get a bonus point, corky!' mission rules. I've come within 5 points, sadly when the spread is 105/104/103/102/101 it doesn't really mean much.

Phryxis, glad I can entertain you. Now why don't you not use the very poorly written (by gamers) wikipedia definition (by gamers) of metagaming (by gamers) and figure out what metagaming is?

Making a list that deals with portions of the game itself is not actually metagaming. If you could restate your argument after you edumacate yourself on what a metagame actually is, that'd be great.

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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298957.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298957.page GMT Not sure I agree with Stelek about the existance or not of a metagame. After wading through so many opinions locally and internet about what "metagame" truly means, I turned to Webster's. Where else do you go to truly define a word? Anyway, metagame's not in there, but "meta" is. Definition 3 was the most appropriate, meaning roughly to generate a new field of study to critically study another field. I'm not quoting it to encourage others to go look it up themselves and then NOT be a source of web pseudodata myself (avoiding a personal pet peeve there, nothing more).

If he is indeed delving into game theory, he sounds to be dealing with games on a pretty critical basis to me. It sounds like he is looking at all the rules for the different codexes himself, rather than looking around for whateverelse the rest of the worldis using, an valuating every bit of it vs. everyother bit all in his own skull.

Or he's fulla crap. Although, I think if he was, there would be more people out there screaming "Stelek's fulla crap, I play in his store and he get's brutalized regularly."

I've go one interesting question. Stelek, with the kind of analytic prowess you are talking about (sounds more like you are describing a talent than a skill), what the HECK do you do for a living?

I realize that many may be choosing to use other definitions of the word, and they can do that if they like (last I checked the Firemen never made it out of 451), however I can just as easily choose to use a "real" definition. Kinda strikes me as the point of language, least as far as I personally take it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298968.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298968.page GMT
For example, game theory plus the theory of asymmetric information explains why the secondhand car market works the way it does. (This is what Joseph Stigler won his Nobel prize for.)

Game theory can be used in strategy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298976.page GMT
Your blog is seriously a thing of beauty.[/quote]

EXALT]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298987.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298987.page GMT
I've:

Dabbled in the veterinary arts, the culinary arts, and tried doing IS but after doing Oracle for several years I realized suicide was looking attractive and thus needed to stop.

So, now I'm in IT. Less pay, but I'm not your typical greedy American looking for the next raise day after I get one.

This means all my intellect is usually sitting around spinning wheels, so I play with Army Builder quite a bit.

Anyway back to the original topic you touched on--what IS the metagame.

A certain idiot from the Magic community defined it as the game inside the game. This is not correct....using a sideboard isn't metagaming, as metagaming resides in the thought process outside the games rules itself--taking the entirety of the games parts and forming it into a coherent whole you can stick into a scenario and then analyze properly, anyway a sideboard is actually just adopting your own tactics to that of the enemy.

You want an example of actual metagaming? Scouting is one. Do I have an advantage against my next opponent (whoever that may be) if I've tabled my first opponent, walked around for an hour and a half, analyzed all the armies, watched players from afar whose armies I'd consider a threat, and then gone into my next match knowing there's maybe 5 guys I'd have to actually play and if one of those 5 doesn't show up...already knowing I'm going to win?

It's what is outside the games rules, not within it, and not within the actual gameplay itself; that defines the metagame.

I run myself into a 'deliberative reasoning' mode that looks like a poker face but I'm actually playing the game mentally, with my best on my opponents army and my worst on my own--and the slower the other person is setting up, rolling dice, measuring, moving, etc the more times I run through the possible permutations the game might take.

Most wargamers believe that studying lists (highly constrained payoffs), intellectually inferior opponents (the internet, sorry!) and a single layer of play (tournaments or friendly games) will make their game theory better. It won't! This is exactly where metagaming, creativity, and systemic thinking all cease to exist. Most wargamers felt this when the DA codex was released, it made for a game a 7 year old could play. Well, 7 year olds play Tic Tac Toe. There's a reason we don't play Tic Tac Toe anymore, or Sorry!, or Chutes n'Ladders. You can't win. People called the DA codex a nerf. It wasn't really a nerf, not really. You plug it into a metagame analysis algorithm and it would come up a paradox. You can't win. Not very good for a wargame, after all.

I guess the easiest way to put it is this: Metagaming means you use your knowledge of other factors to affect the game. Some call this the game within the game, but a card game is NOT our game. You can't hide anything from me, the rules demand it. So I can't really bluff that my scorpions have meltaguns, or that the card I'm holding IS an ace.
So it's comparing apples vs oranges again. Metagaming in 40k means knowing and understanding more and better than your opponent, not just the game but what is going on around you. I can 'read' most players (read like in poker) and I'm unreadable. I know what you are worried about, often before you do, and that's just a small fraction of real metagaming--using one type of input (psychology) to generate my own understanding of what's going on outside the game and enter it into the scenario I'm running in my head.
I start running the metagame the minute I find my new table.

Note that there are various other types of gaming that can (and do) affect the results of tournaments and these are all negative methods I refuse to use. Social engineering is the biggest one I've seen used, but there are others. These are also metagaming outside the game, but to me they're just cheating.

If you want to see what a metagamer reads, to help get that analytic flow going...try reading a few papers by the US DOD on wargaming. I've read all of them.
You can give http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/Research/CAG/ a try. They're highly informative. So is http://jcr.sagepub.com/.

If you don't know what the Prisoner's Dilemna is, odds are you aren't metagaming yet.

Give this a read: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hoteck/PAPERS/BGT.pdf

If it doesn't make you fall asleep, there's hope for you yet. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298990.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/298990.page GMT
Your blog is seriously a thing of beauty.[/quote]

He's basically like Mauleed was 4 years ago. He'll grow out of it, and the hot air that fills his head will eventually leave on its own accord.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299029.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299029.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299033.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299033.page GMT
I thought you'd get full battle points if you and your opponent agree to quit the game early as it is so onesided. If my opponent wanted to quit, I think it would be reasonable to request full battlepoints as I would not have the opportunity to earn them. Or, it could be a clever attempt to raise Sportsmanship scores.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299047.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299047.page GMT
Any arrogance (real or presumed) at playing a game designed for 12 year olds and beating another person, is a joke. It's typical internet "I'm a male model-ninja-SEAL-sniper-bouncer-Vietnam vet" nonsense. Except taken to a much more nerdy plateau.

To C99, maybe the Midwest does so well because there is NOTHING else to do in flyover country Out on the coasts, we have options and stuff. Check it out

As for Stelek, nothing personal, but your posts are hysterical. They remind me of the "how about them apples" guy from Good Will Hunting. As I work for the DoD, I'd laugh at that reference, but why bother? Just go with it. As I said to Ed when he started to strut (in his own way), congrats on being so mind-boggling good at a game for throwing dice around and painting one inch science fiction dolls.

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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299051.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299051.page GMT
You west coasters are truly sick people.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299057.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299057.page GMT I am an east coaster, baby. We do museums and crap.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299064.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299064.page GMT

Exalt for this.


And I've heard the term meta-game refer to a lot of different things. The definition definitely needs to be nailed down to have any sort of beneficial debate as to whether or not it exists.

I think it does, though, at least in some sense.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299066.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299066.page GMT I am an east coaster, baby. We do museums and crap.[/quote]

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) ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299069.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299069.page GMT
good job Stelek. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299070.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299070.page GMT I am an east coaster, baby. We do museums and crap.[/quote]

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) [/quote]

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?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299073.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299073.page GMT
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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299076.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299076.page GMT
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.[/quote]

So very well said, GBF. Now I owe you a beer!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299088.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299088.page GMT
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?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299091.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299091.page GMT
good job Stelek. [/quote]

Thanks. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299092.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299092.page GMT
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.[/quote]

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.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299099.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299099.page GMT
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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299116.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299116.page GMT MtG I think we can draw a lot of parallels with the current state of 40k.

[i]The metagame, essentially, [u]refers to what everyone else is playing[/u].

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.

[u]In tournament situations, the metagame is rarely so clean cut[/u]. 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.[/i]

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:

[i]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 [u]using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions[/u].[/i]

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:

[b]Adaptation to a specific gaming environment[/b]
[i]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.[/i]

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 [i]meta gaming[/i]. 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]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299125.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299125.page GMT
I don't know... the definition of scrub that I'm most familiar with is the one explained here: [url]http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm[/url]

It's a good read, but to sumarize,
[quote]
"<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."
[/quote]

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,
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299126.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299126.page GMT
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 fucking 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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299132.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299132.page GMT
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?[/quote]

Spoken like a true narcissist. But as you mentioned, to each their own.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299133.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299133.page GMT
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?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299134.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299134.page GMT What kind of a win is a cheaters win?
[/quote]

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.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote]
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 fucking 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.[/quote]

Yeah yeah yeah, you're consistantly walking that line. If I crossed it by calling you out and get punished for it, oh well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299137.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299137.page GMT
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 jizz 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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299139.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299139.page GMT
Of course, feel free to PM Yakface or any of the other mods about this as well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299149.page GMT
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.[/quote]


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.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299153.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299153.page GMT
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? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299156.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299156.page GMT Given that many philosophy majors end up saying that....[/quote]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299157.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299157.page GMT
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. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299160.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299160.page GMT
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]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299169.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299169.page GMT
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.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299175.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299175.page GMT
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.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299181.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299181.page GMT


"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]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299182.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299182.page GMT
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.[/quote]Uhhh, I didn't read that thread. Or if I did, his tone didn't rub me quite the way yours does. I don't read every thread on dakka. Much like I probably never registered to you until this thread, the only thing I knew about you was your Starblazers avatar.

As for hypocrisy... What are you talking about? I made a comment in that post about C99's opinion of midwest gamers. I made it as a joke, but his tone wasn't as hysterical to me as yours.

[quote=Stelek]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.[/quote]I can't speak to your military history. I didn't do wargames when I was in, because I was usually deployed. I've done wargames since I've gotten out, and they are NOTHING like you describe. The ones I have been involved in are discussion/role-based, usually to refine/rank technology needs or operational concepts.

[quote=Stelek]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.[/quote]I do, I assure you. I have no doubt you are smart and capable. I just believe you are overstating your case a bit.

[quote=Stelek]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.[/quote]It's hard to beat better performance out of anything in Utah or Vegas. I am not decrying your presence in this hobby, or even your posts here. Just pointing out my reaction to it.

[quote=Stelek]By the way, what cancer-cure have you discovered today?[/quote]Find my self-fellating posts on Dakka (or online), and I'll tell you. For now, I just like deflating bubbles.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299183.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299183.page GMT
...

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.

...

[/quote]

This is an interesting point. One obvious answer is that GW are making troops much more important so we can expect changes to lists along the lines of (A) including more troops, (B) weapon selection emphasising volume of fire over hitting power (AP), (C) more H2H activity since there will be more targets (more figures per area of table.)

The interesting thing on point B is that MEQ armies also will field more troops. Since their troops are often dealt with by AT weapons (plasma, etc) non-MEq armies will have to balance volume of fire and AP in their weaponry.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299187.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299187.page GMT
#2. When I build a list for a large tournament I ask myself “Can my army beat tri-falcon Eldar, MEQs, Godzilla Nids, and Ork hordes?” If my answer is no to any of these, I change my list.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299203.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299203.page GMT
...
[/quote]

No, it depends in the knowledge base you are using to make your choices. If you are playing your friend whom you know plays Nids, you make an anti-Nid list. If you are visiting a new club where you don't know anyone, you would probably make a flexible list with a bias of anti-MEq, because you can reasonably guess 2/3rds of the armies will be MEq.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299220.page GMT
First off, congrats on bringing your substance to insult ratio even lower than your previous posts.

Second, the definition I posted is solid. You don't like it because it doesn't agree with you, and in your world of all consuming arrogance, the first thing that popped into your mind is the authoritative source for the whole world.

Consider the word "metadata." A related word that behaves much the same. Metadata is "data about data." And the metagame is "gaming around the game."

Look. We both know I'm right. Let's try to find a way for you to pretend that the correct definition is what you've been saying all along, so we can move your colossal ego out of the path of the discussion?

[quote]It's what is outside the games rules, not within it, and not within the actual gameplay itself; that defines the metagame. [/quote]

Yes, it is. See? All along you've been saying the correct definition. You win.

[quote]He's basically like Mauleed was 4 years ago. He'll grow out of it, and the hot air that fills his head will eventually leave on its own accord.[/quote]

I dunno, dude, he's something special.

Ed is just "I'm right, you're wrong, plus dumb."

Stelek is really, really something special. He's totally OBSESSED with himself. He spends his posts writing these dramatic scenes where his poker faced poise tears contrasts with his opponent's transparent terror, over a field of abject slaughter. But it's all misunderstood by the fools around him, who only want to see him robbed of just reward by buying painted armies and trading in ridiculous metrics like "lack of social retardation."

He really savors the treasure that is his mind, trying to give us all a glimpse into what it's like to be that brilliant, as if we could ever really grasp something so beyond us.

In the end, it all boils down to empty self congratulation.

For example:

[quote]You plug it into a metagame analysis algorithm and it would come up a paradox.[/quote]

Meaningless. Written purely because he thinks the words "analysis," "algorithm" and "paradox" are intimidating.

[quote]I run myself into a 'deliberative reasoning' mode that looks like a poker face but I'm actually playing the game mentally, with my best on my opponents army and my worst on my own--and the slower the other person is setting up, rolling dice, measuring, moving, etc the more times I run through the possible permutations the game might take.[/quote]

This is seriously beautful stuff.

He's "running himself in a mode." Like he's a friggin mentat from the Dune series. He's like a biological computer! The less pompous amongst us would call it "thinking" but with a mind like his, a mind that artlessly slaps words together, even as it presumes itself superior, "thinking" isn't grandiose enough. It's "running in a mode."

And while the other, lesser mind across the table struggles with basic tasks, he's running through permutations, seeing the battle unfold, always dozens of steps ahead!

Wow.

Actually, NO. Not wow. Ridiculous. Stelek, do you seriously think this is insight? It's useless, choppily written braggartry. Everyone plays the game out in their head. Everyone tries to plan with the worst case in mind. There's nothing insightful here at all.

It's just a sad, poorly executed short story, where you pretend you're a superhero.

In your dreams, you're a viking!

In closing, here's a real gem:

[quote]If you want to see what a metagamer reads, to help get that analytic flow going...try reading a few papers by the US DOD on wargaming. I've read all of them.[/quote]

NOBODY creates the contrast between arrogance and insecurity that Stelek does. It's a thing of beauty.

Watch him do it here. He starts out giving us a tip. If we want to "feel the flow" that he literally lives in, if we want even a taste of the brilliance that's an everday occurrance for him, a place to START would be the link he's provided.

Bright, shining arrogance, streaming from my screen.

Then the darkness! "I've read all of them."

The sad little person inside him can't let it pass. He has to be SURE we know he read them all. Cause, you know, people tend to suggest the utility of things they've never read, right? No. No, it's assumed that when one recommends a resource, one has found value in it as well.

"I'm AWESOME. SO AWESOME. SOOOO SOOO AWESOME. you know i'm awesome right?"

[quote]Any arrogance (real or presumed) at playing a game designed for 12 year olds and beating another person, is a joke.[/quote]

Shhhhhh!

[quote]The truly gifted have one thing in common. They don't have to talk about it. Because other people do.[/quote]

HEY! SHHHHHHHH!

Jeez.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299224.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299224.page GMT
I've played in europe, japan, the west coast, down south (texas/louisiana), in the midwest, and back east.

Maul is from my hometown, if I'm not mistaken. I never ran into him, but does that mean I avoided him? That was many years ago, before there were GT's.

If you think Vegas has been every year, you might like to know Vegas is a new event. Like new, last year. I went to baltimore and chicago the two years previously. I went to LA and seattle before that. I went to adepticon the first year. You keep talking like I'm some kind of backwoods scrub. Well, thanks but I'm not. I'm as or more experienced than most of those tossing the rocks.

Back to the metagame--if you have your own definition of it, let's hear it. If you don't, there are lots of other discussions going on where you can be useful.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299225.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299225.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299227.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299227.page GMT
" the Meta-game is the game beyond the game."

Any action, whether in list construction, intelligence gathering, scouting opponents, thinking about missions/terrain/enemy lists, etc can be part of metagaming.

I think my definition fits all other definitions offered, because it is actually insanely broad. It also is a very abstract noun, it doesn't translate well into phrases like "interenet metagame" or "Midwest Metagame." That's because what people are referring to are actually paradigms, or accumulations of generally accepted wisdom. I think that's the aspect that Stelek finds fault with (the generally accepted wisdom), and relying on that is what makes a player mediocre. Of course, metagaming neither starts nor ends with "what armies are popular on Dakka this month."

In terms of list construction, the need to meta-game goes beyond what armies you will face, but what targets you'll see. The only reason to take a Lascannon over a heavy bolter is if you expect vehicles or 2+ saves. The only reason to ever take a power weapon is if you expect to get into hand to hand. In an even more basic form, the meta-game includes the codices, terrain, missions, and even the concept of game turns, points, and winning and losing....

What I think GBF was referring to in terms of metagame in his first post was the idea that there are a relative handful of top notch armies, and all others are far weaker, to the point of having little chance of winning. That's a really narrow definition. I think that there are units and army builds and by extension codices that are simply superior to the rest. With the cycling out of the old CSM and Ork books (by far the best and by far the weakest), the current clutch of books are pretty balanced, and among the many variables in a game (mission, matchup, player skill, time, luck) army matchups are just one of many.

So, what is metagaming, and how do players use it? By what Stelek described, he does it all: scouts opponents, builds lists to handel any opponent (not just the interenet bad guys, but including them as well), has a deep knowledge of all the codices, etc. To simply narrow the Metagame to checking out hot builds is a misnomer.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299228.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299228.page GMT
Is list creation part of the game? Then it isn't metagaming.

[quote=Blackmoor]#2. When I build a list for a large tournament I ask myself “Can my army beat tri-falcon Eldar, MEQs, Godzilla Nids, and Ork hordes?” If my answer is no to any of these, I change my list.[/quote]

Closer but not quite, it's still the game within the game...which isn't metagaming.

I don't ask myself those questions, they're irrelevant. Any army can 'beat' any army. When you tool your army to beat specific armies, you stretch your army out and an unexpected build kills you. I consider that a bad thing.

I'd rather have a balanced army that can be played well than put my list into an unbalanced state and open myself up to other army builds.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299230.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299230.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299231.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299231.page GMT
[i]If walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck.[/i]

Not true when you take into account coot, geese and swans.

G]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299241.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299241.page GMT
Is list creation part of the game? Then it isn't metagaming.

[quote=Blackmoor]#2. When I build a list for a large tournament I ask myself “Can my army beat tri-falcon Eldar, MEQs, Godzilla Nids, and Ork hordes?” If my answer is no to any of these, I change my list.[/quote]

Closer but not quite, it's still the game within the game...which isn't metagaming.
[/quote]
Stelek, these statements lead me to conclude that you do not yet grasp the definition of metagame. Yes you look for "outside of the game" information but you use that information to make IN-GAME decisions. Looking at tournament trends is "outside of the game" information, using this information to skew your list to have favorable matchups against this field is an in game decision. This is metagaming.

[quote=Stelek]
I don't ask myself those questions, they're irrelevant. Any army can 'beat' any army. When you tool your army to beat specific armies, you stretch your army out and an unexpected build kills you. I consider that a bad thing.

I'd rather have a balanced army that can be played well than put my list into an unbalanced state and open myself up to other army builds.[/quote]
You are quite correct here Stelek. By metagaming you skew your list to defeat the popular/expected opposition. Metagaming your list to an extreme may leave you vulnerable to "unexpected" lists. All very true points, that just have nothing to do with the question of whether "a metagame exists in 40k" (i.e. the topic of this thread).

You may not like or need to metagame (verb), but metagames (noun) do exist.

@GreenBlowFly: I think the issue you are having is trying to apply metagames and metagaming to non-competitive enviornments. The purpose of metagaming is to make it easier for you to win in a given enviornment. In local game clubs where players play with the models they like, armies based on fluff, and have games just for fun, there is no win at all cost mentality. You said it yourself, to "metagame" in such in an enviornment will just lead you to have fewer and fewer opponents to play later.

That does not invalidate the fact that a metagame does exist in competitive enviornments, though it may differ locally, regionally, and nationally.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299243.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299243.page GMT
G]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299248.page GMT 40k, we obviously need a definition. Clearly there is enough out of game information (Landraiders exist) that influences decisions made out of game (I should take lascannons) and in game (That landraider is empty, so i can shoot something else now) that there clearly is a metagame of some sort.

Is there a metagame like we all sort of know it, as in a general pantheon of killer lists and units that need to be planned around? Of course there is. The question isn't if one exists, but rather how good a predicitor is it? I think the answer to that question is "not very."

Part of the confusion is the dual use of "metagame," both as a process by which to game the game, and as a collection of elite armies.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299249.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299249.page GMT
G[/quote]

I think this is true only in that it doesn't really say much. Virtually everybody nudges generalist lists a little more toward MeQ killing, and most people put a very high premium on anti-tank. How can players adhere to a metagame?

I think that if you told a player to design a list, and that he'd be taken to random gaming store to face a random player from that store, he'd take a balanced list that had plenty of Anti-Meq options, and wouldn't depend on heavy cover.

there are a few precepts that I think most people acknowledge and hew to. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299252.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299252.page GMT
[i]Used often in the internet for online games, Roleplaying boards, and chatroom's. It is when a person reads what a character is doing, and thus assumes he knows everything what that character has done- without witnessing any of those events at all because A) his character was not there B)The action was in a different area of the rpg 'world' or C) the person is just a tool![/i]

G]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299253.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299253.page GMT
G[/quote]
I would argue that the tens of thousands of minds (some very brilliant) playing the game would stress the ruleset and find the strongest combos much better than a small group of designers and playtesters and I would have lots of historical evidence in many many games on my side.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299254.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212269/299254.page GMT