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.

Just some attempted analysis of why the supposed top lists don't win more than they do, and why supposedly bad lists do win.

We've seen this a number of times. Someone posts a battle report from a tournament where they did well, or even won, and get called out because their list wasn't what's commonly thought-of as competitive. Unfortunately, the only explanation generally offered up for this is that the other player had lucky matchups and/or incompetent/non-competitive opponents. But this has happened enough times that I cannot believe that it's all due to such luck.

Those who advocate for the "competitive" lists are often decent players who do well in their own local meta-games. They're not making random comments with no basis at all. And yet, the lists that they denigrate still perform well enough to win, even at major events. So what's going on? Why isn't reality meshing with theory?

These are my thoughts:

1) Comparatively few people play optimized competitive lists.

40k is a visual, tactile game with strong storytelling elements. Very few people get into 40k simply for the competitive aspect, and while there are some, I'd venture to say that enough of these grow past that phase or drop the game entirely. Most people don't pick an army based on what is currently competitive, even if they're playing in tournaments. Few people have the models required to adjust to metagame shifts that occur with each new entry to the set of legal (viable) codexes.

At the AWC tournaments run in Chicago, there are about 30 regulars, who may not show up to every event, but are easily recognized. Of these 30, only two play anything close to a mechanized guard army, and maybe three play space wolves, but only one has played some variation of Maximum Overdrive (that I'm aware of). I don't think any of these are even the idealized form of their respective net-lists, due to player preferences and model availability.

Other players pick their army based on things like what models they have, what army they identify with (the guy with the Ultramarine tattoo isn't switching to Blood Angels), what looks good, or some other criteria. With sufficiently few people playing top tier lists, the odds that any one of them goes undefeated goes way down.


2) Top players aren't playing top lists?

I believe that player skill is more important than trimming all the fat from a list or running the most optimized set-up. And, top players are more likely to make their own lists, to deduce what works for them, than they are to adopt something that's floating around the net. That's certainly not to say that no good players run net-style lists, but I reckon the number goes down. I think this is probably even more true for players who no longer feel that they have to prove anything. There is more challenge for some people in taking something besides the best units in a codex. (Here's looking at your Flash Gitz, 40kEnthusiast).


3) Local metagame irregularities

If the only people playing assault-oriented lists in your area are less-competitive players (a nice way of putting it, perhaps), then you might draw the conclusion that assault armies are weaker than shooting armies. If no one in your area is playing a horde army, then any army that packs anti-horde equipment is weaker against the armies it's actually going to play against, which can in turn lead one to believe that anti-horde considerations are weak overall.

I think this line of thinking can lead to some very erroneous considerations in list building. If everyone you play against (or playtest against) swears by the mantra that mech is king, it's unlikely that any extensive playtesting is done against non-mech lists. As such, players can be unprepared when they actually have to play a non-mechanized list run by an opponent who knows how to play it. This is perhaps compounded by then not having the necessary tools to deal with such a list either.

I think some of these trends show up more often at larger, national tournaments, as you get the mix of multiple local meta-game knowledge coming together. As such, what may be considered a very strong local contender can fail when it runs into something that it's just not ready for.


Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

Because a lot of the "top lists" are mostly generated by a vocal minority (often with little actual experience to back it up, just running numbers in a vaccuum seems to be sufficient), and after shouting these "truths" loud and long enough, other lemmings pick up the battle cry and start parroting these "truths" as holy gospel.

On the flip side, most 40K tournaments are riddled with comp scores that kind of force you to take random bs in your list just to not get penalized.

You can't playtest everyone's list on the internet, so when comparing lists the "what purpose does this serve?" and "this unit is not very effective compared to this alternative." often ends up with the "Net List" archtypes forming. Sure, it may well be that custom lists with seemingly meaningless or random elements may be better, but there's no good way to demonstrate it.

the thing is that most competitive internet cooky cutter lists also require a certain tactical approach to be effective.


most people who use these so called "competitive" lists don't have much expierence playing with these lists.

now most of these lists are actually pretty solid, but they are slightly difficult to get the most effectivness out of.


this is why they tend to do fairly well, but fail to take the top places. they are solid which enables the noobs using them to get in the middle tier, but the veterans and serious games who bothered to make their own lists from scratch are the ones who win.


if you want to a competitive gamer i would suggest you don't use these already made lists and make your own. show some inititive and don't be lazy.







one thing i have wondered is, do big league gamers put these lists out deliberatly, knowing they are difficult to use effectivly so every noob will start using them and, due to inexpierence and the ovberconfidence of playing a "masters" list, flood the Tournaments with easy opponents. thereby solidifying the big gamers hold on the Tournament scene.

It's funny when a player base runs missions in its tournaments that cater to firepower based MSU armies, and then they contend that firepower-based MSU armies are the only competitive way to play 40k....