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.

Recently I've begun noticing that more and more people at the stores/clubs I play at are taking more and more internet lists.

The other thing though is that most of them never seem to perform as well as the hype would make you belive, thats not ablanket rule, there's a mech guard and a SW player with very 'net influenced lists' who do very well. But by and large people who have grown their army tend to do better.

Now I understand that the net is very meta game heavy, but I find that there is a certain perverse pleasure when I manage to take apart a grey hoard which has been obviously built in response to the net.

At the moment I'm working on a new army, there's a theme, but yes it's designed to be competative, but I hope that in the end it'll work because i understand how to make the most from it.

Ok Mini rant over

Organic lists are "better" in my opinion. While I haven't seen to many internet lists (I don't visit the lists section unless I have questions), using something you made is just the way to go, IMHO.

Organic is best. I will ask questions about my list, or look over an Internet list to see what I may like, but no matter how loud someone gets you have to play it to see how it works. I think battle-reports are much much better resources.

Reaver83 wrote:. . . in the end it'll work because i understand how to make the most from it.

That's the only difference, not "made myself" vs. "made for me" vs. "made with help". Organic, Internet, and shall we say Inorganic lists are neither inherently bad nor good, better nor worse. I would say that people that make their list are likely to do better (assuming basic list building skills) then those that thoughtlessly download one, but that is a reflection on the person not the list.

People who net list are looking for the easy win. They see that everyone is rolling face with it and they assume they can throw it down on the table and do the same.

Even with a champ winning net list, It wont work if you have no idea what your doing on the table top.

The general makes the list good the list doesnt make the general good.

What I do is to take a net-list I think I like and analyze it, and then I taylor it to my personal tastes/gaming style.

So in the end they're just a base to work around.

This is a pretty expensive hobby to get into and if your just starting out learning through trial and error will take a toll on your wallet. New players oftentimes have no idea how to put together a balanced list since they have a poor grasp on what other armies can do let alone their own army.

When you start playing with a battle force + some random units or blackreach you can put together 500-1000 point lists and play different people. Depending on the army this can work well or not at that points level possibly giving the owner an unrealistic expectation of what their army is capable of at higher points levels. This means that new players can often ignore units that work better at higher points levels and focus on buying more of what worked for them at 500 points only to find that they now have a fairly useless army at 2000 points. Or they could start off playing a small group of people and get into the bad habit of list tailoring to their opponents only to find that when they branch out to play more people they immediately get stomped.

While no one should expect to come into the game and start beating down vets, feeling like you just wasted several hundred dollars can be very frustrating for a new player enough to make them give up on the hobby because they have a highly unbalanced list and are in a situation where its difficult to figure out what right looks like since they lack the tools in their own arsenal.

Balanced all-comers lists that you can find on several websites have a lot of tools in them to respond to a variety of different builds that a new player will discover using the list against several enemies. Building a solid list first and experimenting later gives people a chance to learn the game as they play which in the beginning often means losing more than winning by small margins instead of repeatedly getting tabled and buying more random crap to "fix" their list and ultimately get burned out.

It may not be a popular opinion but I think that helping new players find out what worked for other people and why has a place in the hobby. If done before they make large purchases I think this will keep more new players in the hobby long term which is good for everyone even if it means new player end up running a lot of lists you've seen before.

Reaver83 wrote:The other thing though is that most of them never seem to perform as well as the hype would make you belive, thats not ablanket rule, there's a mech guard and a SW player with very 'net influenced lists' who do very well. But by and large people who have grown their army tend to do better.

While this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, it is most likely not indicative of net-lists being bad per se' as much as it likely represents players that use them having a lack of understanding of their army/units/theme/tactics. To really play well you need to understand your army (for the sake of simplicity I am purposefully ignoring our opponents), not just in terms of what each unit represents, but in terms of what you can expect from each model and how best to apply them to the situation your given. People that I see using net lists (again, anecdotal) tend to either be new to the game/their army, or can't be bothered to delve very deeply into the play mechanics.

Isn't the whole point of the game to 'build' and play an army? I make a new list virtually every time I play. The thought of playing someone else's army would never cross my thinking. So power to all my brothers and sisters that have enough IQ points to read their codex!

It seems to me that the "net build" lists tend to fail hard at tournaments. Nothing makes me happier than seeing a gimmick heavy army across the table from me. What scares me is a good player that is using an innovative combination of units.

Internet lists are better on paper. However Imagine this, you train for years with a 91/30 nagant. You love this rifle & know it inside & out. You have made subtle changes to fit your style and have grown to compensate for its flaws.

Now I give you a M21 and say "happy hunting"

Yes it's still a good rifle, arguably slightly better, but you aren't used to it. You haven't had time to learn it's style and make your own personal touches, thus you are worse off with it.

This is how net lists are if you have played the army previously. They are odd and it will take time to work right, however after a quick few losses most people consign them to "Well that list sucked" and try again.

Organic will always be better than an internet list, assuming a player is sound of mind and whatnot A player who has taken time to build a list based on strategy, experience and personal play style will usually have a better experience on the table then just running with a flavour of the month build.

A lot of internet lists tend to be a bit gimmicky in my opinion. Sure lash, oblit spam *might* rock face but it can also be easily countered.

I think it all boils down to a player’s skill being more important than the list itself.

cromwest wrote:

When you start playing with a battle force + some random units or blackreach you can put together 500-1000 point lists and play different people. Depending on the army this can work well or not at that points level possibly giving the owner an unrealistic expectation of what their army is capable of at higher points levels. This means that new players can often ignore units that work better at higher points levels and focus on buying more of what worked for them at 500 points only to find that they now have a fairly useless army at 2000 points. Or they could start off playing a small group of people and get into the bad habit of list tailoring to their opponents only to find that when they branch out to play more people they immediately get stomped.

drukawski wrote:

it is most likely not indicative of net-lists being bad per se' as much as it likely represents players that use them having a lack of understanding of their army/units/theme/tactics

I think this is almost the best answer here, the fact that whilst people may have a list with units they have no concept of how to use them, often starting small is a way to understand how the core units work, then you add in other units, yes there may be a trial and error phase involved,, but proxies? or perhaps whilst your unit may fail against player X's army, it'll dominate player Y's, and you can then work on finding the balance against all comers, and find how you play, and how you get the most out of a unit

These threads never fail to bring up two lines of though:
1) net lists are simply a crutch, and
2) net lists are generally easily beaten

I suppose there doesn't have to be conflict between the two, but forgive me for thinking there is some.

Net lists generally represent what's successful, by some players in some locations. That won't always translate to every metagame, but in general the units, synergies, and attack plans of the best lists will work once learned.

Clearly, if a newer player shows up with an off the shelf new list, he's probably going to have a rough go at first. But a lot of armies that look like net lists may also be a result of convergent evolution.

I've never used a list written by someone else - but it doesn't stop my lists looking a lot like these 'net-lists'.

Define "organic" lists? Is an organic list something one builds oneself? If so, then why does one assume an Organic list has to differ that much from "internet" lists, whatever that might be?

I had this conversation with Adam before I assume he got drunk and started posting on Dakka (what's wrong with our fora Adam, you start cheating on us with all these strangers, It feels dirty, wrong, I feel used)

An organic list is one that develops by evolution, you come up with a list, you play a few games, you realise that the 10man squad of rough riders with Mogul Kahn is perhaps not as amazing as you thought and putting power fists (2 of them for the extra attack)on your devestator Sgt. is perhaps a less than optimal use of points.

You change stuff around, you move a special weapon from one squad to another, you change psychic powers, you get rid of extra armour on 4 tanks and buy something that actually kills stuff.

You rinse and repeat, eventually you end up with an army with no dead weight, everything has synergy with everything else and compensates for it's weakness.

I guess this is how nasty internet lists begin their life, someone does this and then wins a couple of tournements, the list gets stuck on warseer and then there's a rush on archoflagalants until the next list comes along.

the advantage of doing this is you end up with some unorthodox cominations which work well because you came up with them and then compensated.

If you then take that same list off the internet how are you supposed to know that the list mainly works because the nurglings are the lynchpin to the bloodcrushers, you don't play the list to it's best strengths and then people go online to say "I don't see why people thing bloodcrusherling lists are so hard, i beat one with nothing but Mogul Khan and some conscripts"

my spacewolf tournement list is unbeaten in tournements, it's not that similar to what I've seen elsewhere on the net but it works because I've made it to work for me.

(the same with Adam's daemons, much as it pains me to say)

My lists are organic. I started off and had no idea what I was doing (like making a 1500 IG list, which was a gunline with Creed and Kell). As I got more into the game, however, I looked online and saw what other players were using (for example, meltavets in vendettas), and my list started looking like a decent list. It wasn't a net list, it had some things I threw in that aren't generally used as often.

My army fits my style, and no net list will have that.

So basically "organic" lists are more accurately just lists created through an understanding of the game, while "inorganic" lists don't actually exist, as these lists are more often someone else's "organic" list that you're not using properly because you don't quite understand the strategy behind it.

basically, yup

though when you sell you 12 drop pods on ebay after 3 games, that's kind of a sign that your list is not very organic

I think the trouble with the idea of "Net Lists" vs "Organic" is that solid list-making is solid list-making. As a player experiments, they begin to find which units are good and which units are pants. They'll naturally begin to resemble "good" lists more and more as they evolve. This is more of a problem for some codexes than others. Somebody playing Imperial Guard has quite a few ways they can take their army. Somebody playing CSM not so much.

Honestly, how many codexes boil down to one awesome choice, one ok choice, and one obviously terrible choice?

1-UP wrote:I think the trouble with the idea of "Net Lists" vs "Organic" is that solid list-making is solid list-making. As a player experiments, they begin to find which units are good and which units are pants. They'll naturally begin to resemble "good" lists more and more as they evolve. This is more of a problem for some codexes than others. Somebody playing Imperial Guard has quite a few ways they can take their army. Somebody playing CSM not so much.

Honestly, how many codexes boil down to one awesome choice, one ok choice, and one obviously terrible choice?

Codex: Necrons (definitely)
Codex: Dark Angels (definitely)
Codex: Daemonhunters (definitely)
Codex: Dark eldar (definitely)
Codex: Witch Hunters (definitely)
Codex: Tau Empire (arguably)
Codex: Eldar (arguably)
Codex: Black Templar (arguably)

Which is roughly half of the army books out there.

Melissia wrote:

1-UP wrote:I think the trouble with the idea of "Net Lists" vs "Organic" is that solid list-making is solid list-making. As a player experiments, they begin to find which units are good and which units are pants. They'll naturally begin to resemble "good" lists more and more as they evolve. This is more of a problem for some codexes than others. Somebody playing Imperial Guard has quite a few ways they can take their army. Somebody playing CSM not so much.

Honestly, how many codexes boil down to one awesome choice, one ok choice, and one obviously terrible choice?

Codex: Necrons (definitely)
Codex: Dark Angels (definitely)
Codex: Daemonhunters (definitely)
Codex: Dark eldar (definitely)
Codex: Witch Hunters (definitely)
Codex: Tau Empire (arguably)
Codex: Eldar (arguably)
Codex: Black Templar (arguably)

Which is roughly half of the army books out there.

Please enlighten me as to the "one awesome choice" in the Tau codex.

I'm pretty sure there's more than one way to play Tau.

One awesome choice for Tau?

Leave them on the shelf.

Awesome choice in the tau codex? Crisis suits with missle pods, transport popping power go!

I think alot of people in this thread just hate 'net lists, and say that organic lists are better since 'net lists are for losers.

I run an "organic" list sure, not the run-of-the-mill list, though it has some choices that tend to be in 'net lists.

Fire dragons? Check. 5 man dire avenger squads? Check.

I think alot of people are having trouble defining what a net list is, there are quite few. I would reckon the only ones being the dreaded lash list, since it has one way to play really. Then there is the "leaf blower" which hardly anyone uses, though a few still do, alot of people idiotically label something that isn't so a leafblower though. We have the triple long fang + minimum grey hunter units with a single rune priest lists, though in the end, they're like that since most of the time they wipe the floor with "organic" lists.

Net lists are exactly that, and they are that because of their success, they tend to have one way to play, and aren't confusing enough to drive people away from them. There is nothing wrong with that either... it is a game of plastic soldiers, and it is a social game, if you don't like it, suck it up and don't play them. They'll either have their own clique, or they will get the hint.

Organic lists are sometimes variants of 'net lists, not because people think that the 'net lists are 'da bomb... but because people realize what works, and what doesn't work in a codex after time. If you don't play an army, you cannot claim a list to be a 'net list, and even if you do own it, it is easy to be biased.

Alot of organic lists are falsely labeled as 'net lists, which drives me to the point of insanity. I once had someone call my list a 'net list, even though I have never seen someone use all the choices that I use, until I convinced them otherwise.

As to the OP and people who have said "organic lists" are better, take a pause and think... is it really a net list? I think not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vrakk wrote:One awesome choice for Tau?

Leave them on the shelf.

Seconded!

Well, it WAS qualified with "arguably", I will just point out a few. Have you ever seen anyone run Vespids successfully in a take all comers list? Drone squads? Do people prefer steathsuits with burst cannons or fusion guns? have you ever seen a command and control node in the past couple years? How about grenades on FW?

All of my lists are "organic" lists (I still say the term has no need to exist) as I use my own internal logic and math-hammer to determine what I want to take, along with a good amoutn of "hey that's cool, I want to take some of that".

But people accuse them of being net lists, because people are idiots.

I think that if you straight-up copy lists from the Internet, you will not do very well. Even famous lists like the "leafblower" have their faults and inefficiencies-- I have yet to see any list that I would describe as perfectly optimized.

That being said, starting from the Internet is probably a better idea than starting from a Battleforce.

If a unit is taken in most lists on the internet... it is for a reason.

So don't be afraid to take those long fangs/meltavets/razorbacks just because someone thinks they're overpowered.

I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.