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 because a player has a list similar to something that won a tournament doesnt mean he copied it. With the right mindset anyone can read a codex and see what units stand above the others and decide it'd be more efficient to use those units in multiples.

Also, unlike say MTG, in 40k you don't see that much "netlisting" Look at armies like Alex Fennell's Necrons and you'll see fine-tuned armies that other folks aren't simply going to copy. Even Kopach, since everyone knows who he is, plays a pretty unique type of IG/SW hybrid that I haven't seen others copy.

Indeed. It seems netlist hate comes in two flavors. The first is "It bothers me that someone didn't put any thought into a list and just copied something from the interwebz that they heard was a good list." The second is "I see this list all the time and I'm sick of playing the same setup over and over."

Both are valid concerns, but you have to take into account that each codex generally has pretty obvious high points and low points. It's really not hard to do some basic min/maxing with a little thought, which puts you in line with many net lists, so you can't just assume the first issue. Likewise, unless you have a nice internally balanced codex, competitive lists are going to fall into a narrow range of units. Having a local meta of armies that also have poor internal balance narrows the competitive choices even more. This is going to feed the second issue, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it, other than find different players who aren't as focused on winning.

 Krellnus wrote:
Exactly how is there no thought put into them? Net lists tend to be drafted from the combination of mathhammer and the experience of dozens, hundreds even, tournament players to produce the best possible lists.

I think it was a poorly worded statement on his behalf, but I UNDERSTAND what he was saying. There is little to no thought on net lists, from the people who copy them. And I think it's true. I play RPGs (not video games, but AD&D, VtM, Pathfinder, Cyberpunk, ect) and I play CCGs. And you run into the same thing. One person sees what won, copy, past, repeat. Then two locals see he is winning, copy, past, and so on. Same with seeing the same PC made for an RPG, just new name. (sometimes the same player) while other people put work into what they do.
Now do I have issues with people doing it at all, no. I have issues when it's ALL I see. It's one thing to move things about, and take some ownership of it. It's another when no one has a thought of their own. They know what unit starts how far in, what moves first. Now I can say I know what I will be playing, but then after game three of the same thing, it's like a bad rerun.
For those football fans out there, do you want to watch/play the same game over and over, move for move? Even with dice rolling different, it's the same song and dance.
Now, seeing it every so often, whatever, I can deal. But I paid a lot of money for my 5 armies, my 3 Battle Fleet Gothic fleets,. and my ex's 40K army. I make new lists all the time, just because, it's a game, and I want to try different things. Some people can't or won't do that, and that's fine, but a local store here had a handful of guys that buy/sell/trade their army every few months, just to copy whatever winning list is out there. So they all play the same thing. What's the point after awhile?
It's a game, there is no need to try to crush every kid, new player or whatever you see, and to bore new people when they see not only nothing new, but now think they need to copy these other people, setting them down the same path.
And part of the game, is getting your army, painting it to suit you, building the list, and playing that list. Copy and paste of every new winning net list, is just being lazy (and I did say every new list, like I said. I understand doing it sometimes.) It was the same with CCGs, you see the same thing across the table as you every single time (or the same two things, as you had Deck 1, and then it's counter Deck) nothing new, just breeds it going stale.

Experiment 626 wrote:
I dislike spamy netlists - ie: 2-4 Jaws/Living Lightning Rune Priests + 4-6x Grey Hunters in las/plas razorback + 3x Missilefangs.
It's just boring to play against as there's no variety anywhere and no imagination at all in the list construction. It just reeks of "I have to win the easy way", especially when you see the same person using that exact same list every single week during open gaming nights.

I can understand it's place in a tournament setting, especially a 'winner-take-all' style tournament which only offers prizes for winning games. (ie: no sportsmanship, overall or painting awards)

But to show up on what's supposed to be just a laid back & friendly open gaming night, and then roflstomping mainly the younger players?
Those types of people need a swift sharp kick to the junk and told to go feth off because all they do is kill the community and discourage almost every single newer player from continuing in the 40k hobby.

This. I can relate especially well since I play SW. I wouldn't say there is no thought put into these lists but there is a lack of flavor and creativity. However, that's not the goal. The goal of lists like these is pure, cold tactics and numbers. I don't necessarily have issue with them, but it is frustrating that so many look at them as the ONLY option for a given army. I prefer fun, fluffy, creative lists which are tactically sound. I've learned a lot of tactics looking at net lists, but it's hard to get feedback and info muh of the time when it's assumed te only viable list is a WAAC or net list. Creativity, fluff, and fun are not mutually exclusive from tactically sound.

I do see why people like them. They're pre-made proven lists that allow someone to have a viable army with little to no planning on their part. I can also value them for trying out a new unit to see how it works in general, without having to worry about list cohesion initially.

Not like I am against net list, however, when one guy in your FLGS only plays these lists is all he does. No matter the game system. I can tell you almost what he will pay at any tournament. Whatever won the week before at another store. Saw it today.

Sorry folks i haven't started a thread on dakka in a long time which counts for the messed up poll. i should have been more detailed . i don't know for asking advice for a list is one thing . just copying one of the point and click armys i win lists. takes away and thought and skill. form the game and yea i know its a game of dice etc. but its my op that's all .vjust see what you all thought too

I don't hate net lists, but I am disappointed in the lack of effort from the net list users.

I don't use them myself, and I generally have no trouble with them.
Copying a net list doesn't grant the ability to use it.
Also, a net list isn't going to match the local meta that it was designed for.

Most "net lists" are inferior to personalized and tuned lists that are selected to match one's playing style anyway. Why take a list that's optimal for somebody else? Figure out what's optimal for you.

 Kingsley wrote:
Most "net lists" are inferior to personalized and tuned lists that are selected to match one's playing style anyway. Why take a list that's optimal for somebody else? Figure out what's optimal for you.

This touches on what I personally feel about netlists. There's a lot of people who just copy a list and then think they'll win instantly and are then suprised when they fail because they don't understand how to play said list.

 Kingsley wrote:
Most "net lists" are inferior to personalized and tuned lists that are selected to match one's playing style anyway. Why take a list that's optimal for somebody else? Figure out what's optimal for you.

This. So much this. I will never stop playing Mech Tau as my core, even as I adjust the rest of the list around it as the new codex rolled out. It just suits my personal playstyle and tactical mindset too well.