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.

One of the features of modern game design is the importance of List-Building, or as others call it, the pre-game strategy. Whenever a poll goes up asking what people prefer, list building or more even forces where tactics are more important, inevitably the poll is typically split about 55/45 in favor of list building (on average, some polls will differ more wildly).

List-Building is a lot of fun for a lot of people. It is also the bane of a lot of people. Some because they aren't good at it. Some because they don't like showing up to a game where the outcome is decided when the two lists hit the table before either model-case is opened and the first model has even touched the surface.

In competitive play, the point of list building is in fact to win the game before the game has begun. In a game with poor design there will be units that are just really far superior to anything else, and you will find the competitive crowd gravitate quickly to those, leaving little to no room for anything else. This of course bleeds into casual play as well and isolates a chunk of the game into a place never seen in favor of running the same units and strategies over and over again in a version of Groundhog day wherein the game replays itself over and over again with the only difference being dice rolls.

So the question posed is... why do we take the two - three hours out of our lives playing a game that you can tell the outcome of before the first die is cast where one list hard counters the other?

For grins, here's a poll asking what you prefer. Most people aren't 100% either direction I realize, but what do you PREFER.

I certainly prefer having the game decide the outcome. Otherwise the players could just compare army lists at the start of the match and save all that time and money collecting and painting plastic.

List-building can be fun - coming up with fluff, figuring out how to represent that in the game, figuring out ways to have your dudes support each other, etc.

Where list-building isn't as fun is when the points system doesn't actually represent the effectiveness of units, so you just end up choosing the undercosted ones while avoiding the overcosted ones. It's also dull if it's just spamming more Flyers or Monstrous Creatures than your opponent is likely to have answers for.

The poll results so far are totally different than the one that just went down on an AOS facebook page.

List building is fun, but playing the game is where the magic really happens. On the fly strategies, crazy luck (good and bad) are really what make this game fun, more so than "I take 6 of these units because they're the best".

I enjoy list building, but not in the context of it massively affecting the outcome of a game.

List building is where I lay out how I want to play the game, fast units vs bashy units, elites vs hordes, monsters vs heroes, etc etc.

So while I enjoy list building and probably spend more time building lists than I do actually playing the game, I don't want it to be the deciding factor in who wins or loses. Certainly not the stupidity of practically winning or losing a game before the armies are even deployed.

40k list building is basically about figuring out how GW fethed up their unit balance and picking the best things, that's not really list building to me, it's just finding flaws in the game.

I only play "casual" and lately against the same opponent (Eldar) as my brother quit the game.

We vary our lists regularly, and don't use cheesy Death Stars etc.

We play using 6th edition rules though, so my 4th Edition Codex Orks lists go against his Eldar's 6th Edition Codex lists. With varying lists, the Orks (or Rebel Grots in my case using Orks rules) can actually win against a superiour army and Codex, which keeps the game fun.

So while I enjoy making lists, seeing dice rolls and armies on the table trying to outwit each other is much more enjoyable.

-

List building is kind of fun, but it frustrates me a little that the tactics forum is completely choked up with list building.

nareik wrote:
List building is kind of fun, but it frustrates me a little that the tactics forum is completely choked up with list building.

This, this, a hundred thousand million times THIS!

nareik wrote:
List building is kind of fun, but it frustrates me a little that the tactics forum is completely choked up with list building.

A symptom of the two concepts being out of wack in the games in question?

One of the features of modern game design is the importance of List-Building,

I'd actually suggest that it is the complete opposite outside of the GW ecosystem.

The two systems I've played since essentially dumping 40K are X Wing and (more recently) Guild Ball. I've also lightly dabbled with Infinity and WMH.

The common feature amongst all of them is that a significant difference in list power (which is, in itself, difficult to achieve as balance is generally better across the board) can be offset by intelligent play. List building isn't redundant, but is about finding something that suits your playstyle, or that you find engaging to play more than exploiting some loophole or critical imbalance to gain an edge.

Certainly the games I'm drawn to are the ones that emphasise in-game decision making over pre-game analysis, and those seem to be the sort of games that are growing in popularity. While the likes of 40K, which leaves the player little thought once the models hit the table outside of target priority have been on the wane.

To be fair there are so many possible varitions in an opposing army that i's fairly difficult to go deeply into pure tactics, but I sure ish people would try a bit more!

You can download a list from the net, but you can only learn how to kill it by playing the game. In game tactics are a lot more important than list building.

The results of this poll do not line up with the reality I feel I have witnessed.

I do prefer in game strategy. Blood Bowl might be my favorite game- pretty much every turn gives me a situation I wasn't prepared for, and I have to figure out what to do. I got into it after being in 40k for many years, and I loved the difference- all the in game strategy was super refreshing.


Personally, I find list building to the the focal point of 40k strategy. I've spent hours fine tuning lists and strategies in the hypothetical. By the time they get onto the battlefield, I look at my opponent's force and determine my target priority, and after that the force can mostly play itself.

Mind- it isn't JUST about listbuilding- it is also about crafting a plan and knowing how to use the list, which units of yours match up well against which enemy units etc. But I still find that most of my tactical thinking has gone into the game before we're actually playing. I do make some choices on the fly, but I don't ever find that I need to deliberate about it like I do in Blood Bowl.


I figured that most people on these forums are big 40k fans, but those poll results make me wonder Do other people find 40k to be a game with a lot of in game tactical decision making, or are there others who have had my experience with 40k?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

One of the features of modern game design is the importance of List-Building,

I'd actually suggest that it is the complete opposite outside of the GW ecosystem.

The two systems I've played since essentially dumping 40K are X Wing and (more recently) Guild Ball. I've also lightly dabbled with Infinity and WMH.

The common feature amongst all of them is that a significant difference in list power (which is, in itself, difficult to achieve as balance is generally better across the board) can be offset by intelligent play. List building isn't redundant, but is about finding something that suits your playstyle, or that you find engaging to play more than exploiting some loophole or critical imbalance to gain an edge.

Certainly the games I'm drawn to are the ones that emphasise in-game decision making over pre-game analysis, and those seem to be the sort of games that are growing in popularity. While the likes of 40K, which leaves the player little thought once the models hit the table outside of target priority have been on the wane.

I think you have a good point here (although I think that Blood Bowl is all about the in game decisions).

I had a friend who majored in statistical mathematics, and as a project, he was creating a formula that would determine the strength of 40k lists. He explained how it worked (gauging the damage output of your army and its ability to soak).

And it makes sense to me that a question like "How do I deal with faction X" is answerable with "Bring more or unit Y." That's how tactics discussions generally go in 40k. On a Blood Bowl forum, I once asked "How do I deal with faction X" and we got into a discussion about defensive formations that work against their particular skill set.

I initially thought 'list building,' but after reading your explanation I realized we weren't thinking the same thing.

I prefer a game where the list you make is very important. I want to have to think about my unit selections, weigh the importance of upgrades, and select chioces which will complement one another in a way that builds on their strengths and covers each other's weaknesses. But I also want a game where there are lots of possible combinations.

However, I also think a skilled or canny player should be able to make up for army deficit with tactical acumen.

 master of asgard wrote:

nareik wrote:
List building is kind of fun, but it frustrates me a little that the tactics forum is completely choked up with list building.

This, this, a hundred thousand million times THIS!

The trick is, it's virtually impossible to talk about specific tactics without knowing the terrain that's being fought over. And general tactics only covers so much...

List-building is fun, but if it determines the outcome of the game before the first piece is set down on the table, then what fun is there in that.

In my mind, you want to be able to build a force that works well together, but that synergy should not be the end-all of the game. It should, at best, help to drive your tactics - not replace them.

List building is all about trying to find an idea that will work on the table. Often it is the most enjoyable part of the game, especially with Orks when I get a killpoints missions and hammer and anvil deployment. Not quite as much fun there.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
The results of this poll do not line up with the reality I feel I have witnessed.

I do prefer in game strategy. Blood Bowl might be my favorite game- pretty much every turn gives me a situation I wasn't prepared for, and I have to figure out what to do. I got into it after being in 40k for many years, and I loved the difference- all the in game strategy was super refreshing.


Personally, I find list building to the the focal point of 40k strategy. I've spent hours fine tuning lists and strategies in the hypothetical. By the time they get onto the battlefield, I look at my opponent's force and determine my target priority, and after that the force can mostly play itself.

Mind- it isn't JUST about listbuilding- it is also about crafting a plan and knowing how to use the list, which units of yours match up well against which enemy units etc. But I still find that most of my tactical thinking has gone into the game before we're actually playing. I do make some choices on the fly, but I don't ever find that I need to deliberate about it like I do in Blood Bowl.


I figured that most people on these forums are big 40k fans, but those poll results make me wonder Do other people find 40k to be a game with a lot of in game tactical decision making, or are there others who have had my experience with 40k?

I think that most want it to be about tactics, but the reality of the game is that if you want to win, then it is about list building.

I am all about the tactics - and so I stopped playing 40K.

The Auld Grump - I had already skipped two editions before admitting to myself that I was never going to be getting back into the game.

I'd say I would have more respect for a person who was excellent with tactics (army be damned) vs. someone who was able to glean meta-advantages, likely from the internet. Anyone can crunch some numbers, look at points costs vs. outcome, or visit internet forums to create a powerful list. However, someone who understands the games, basic tactics, and can make a good showing regardless ---- that's the better player.

When I'm not playing a skirmish game, I really enjoy games which reward realistic tactics (namely in WW2 or Vietnam games).

Never use a list. Haven't for years. 40k has no real tactics or strategy outside of "build a strong list"

Context matters. I imagine list building matters a lot more in tournament or "competitive" play than "casual" play.

I DO write lists, and I do try to win, but not at the cost of fun. I play a regular Eldar opponent. I pretty much know what figures he has, and what he likes to field. We're playing a series of Ork vs Eldar games where I'm bringing different forces. The least fun games were the killa kans and the skwadron games. The cans got decimated (as I suspected they would) while the Eldar had no anti air, so got pulped in turn. Game effectively over in turn 2.

Most fun is a mixed list where generally the game could go either way at any point - and does several times during the game.

Rarely have I seen such a conclusive poll

It's all about the wording though, if you'd asked "Do you enjoy list building?" there would have been a lot more "yes" responses, even if you'd asked "Do you enjoy list building more than gaming?" you probably would have gotten more "yes" (though people would probably find it harder to admit, I think there's a bunch of people who enjoy building lists more than actually playing games ).

But asking which one should have a bigger impact on winning a game? Yeah, even if you enjoy list building I don't think many people actually want to see it have a big impact on the game itself.

Intentional. I think most people enjoy SOME list building, but I really want to know was do people think list b uilding should be the heaviest weight in a game's conclusion.

Well, my opinion is in quite no way original, but i would say they are both mattering and both list building and ground tactics have been thought to give you tools to win. List buildings is about finding out a strategy, gather the specific troops you think you will need. It s basically the concrete foundation of your strategy, and as a consequence it s great fun since you have to think about sinergy between units, make gear choices and visualize to fight to try and figure out what will or wont work.

But then, on the battlefield that will witness the clash of your unleashed plastic soldiers, is the most important part. This time it comes to adaptation, flexibility, and of course luck. Reacting to what s unfolding is the frame to enjoy putting your skills to the test while hqving a good laugh on whatever crappy, unexpected roll comes out (qnd rant about it but that,s part of the thing isn t it?).

So this combination should be, in an ideal world, what decides the outcome of your kitchen table s conflict, so i love both, even if i would tend to prefer tatics a bit.

Unfortunatly, it s how the game SHOULD work, not how it DOES work. The gigantic codex unbalance resulsts in armies crushing the others whatever the weaker one puts up: Meanwhile, tournaments players rush into the fray in order to secure easy victory: since luck is involved, having the best strategy will be of no help if your main units patheticly gets screwed by an unfortunate moral check... that s the reason why making victory unavoidable through cheese lists is so tempting.

Yes this ruins the game. Yes, it seems to be encouraged by GW since it must make them make more profit -just look at the formation system which is the worst swindle ever committed in wargaming...- but im convinced that we casual players who enjoy even, unpredictable and cunning fights can easily do so as long as we play with poeple seeing wargaming the same way as we do.

Sorry for this long, horribly heqvy going post tipped yith my new german/russian keyboard -hence some misspelling i guess- and congratulations if you did read it through!

The pre-game is absolutely the most important part. If you only build gak lists with no synergy, it doesn't matter how much of a good armchair general you THINK you are. It means you don't apply it and use what resources you got available, because reasons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The pre-game is absolutely the most important part. If you only build gak lists with no synergy, it doesn't matter how much of a good armchair general you THINK you are. It means you don't apply it and use what resources you got available, because reasons.

Agree 100%. If it was all down to "tactics" (which I remain of the opinion that there are none in 40k), then there wouldn't be so much sobbing and bleating about broken lists/broken units. One would be able to deal with them using the tools laid on the table and not having to tailor the list beforehand.

 auticus wrote:
Intentional. I think most people enjoy SOME list building, but I really want to know was do people think list b uilding should be the heaviest weight in a game's conclusion.

Once upon a time, there was a game titled Trillion Credit Squadron, where the players had a trillion credits that they used to create a squadron of ships in Traveller.

They would then do battle - with no die rolls whatsoever, just crunching the raw numbers.

A game of pure list building. (And it turned out that carriers were, by far, the best bang for your buck.)

The Auld Grump

For me, I'm not a fan of list building being the primary decider of who wins or looses - If I am in the mood for that sort of game, I'll play MTG. I would prefer to play a fluffy army with a story rather than an ultra competitive one.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The pre-game is absolutely the most important part. If you only build gak lists with no synergy, it doesn't matter how much of a good armchair general you THINK you are. It means you don't apply it and use what resources you got available, because reasons.

Agree 100%. If it was all down to "tactics" (which I remain of the opinion that there are none in 40k), then there wouldn't be so much sobbing and bleating about broken lists/broken units. One would be able to deal with them using the tools laid on the table and not having to tailor the list beforehand.

There's definitely tactics to 40K, but it's overwhelmed by the list-building aspect.