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.

Been pondering this one many times of late and wondered if anyone else was starting to feel the same. You get someone to play a game with, they say an army and you just know it'll be x, y or z type list, with exactly the same units as everyone else uses in that type of list, so you know your army a, b or c should pretty much nuke them...
With the internet forums for our games and players sharing ideas, constructive criticisms etc, is it starting to become we might as well be paying £20 for a couple of sheets of A4 paper with an army and special rules printed on them? While the builds might be popular for a reason how many of you steer clear of them in favour of something you feel is unique but will still be a pain for your opponent to defeat thereby actually making the game more interesting? It's sad to say that these cookie cutter lists are the reason I really can't be bothered with tournaments, why I have shelved armies in the past as they got boring very quickly and also I feel it actually takes some skill away from the game. After all if you can just google "ubberpowerfulspeshmarinearmyofawesomenessssss" learning to build a list and tweak it until it works for you is becoming a thing of the past due to the WAAC mentality out there.

Any thoughts?

Ah, everything changes, everything stays the same.

I deliberately try to avoid cookie cutter or popular lists out of spite and sheer bloody-mindedness. It's fundamental to my character, afraid to say.

+1 to that.

Changing your list around and experimenting with it is part of the game and one I really like to get my teeth into. Sometimes writing a list can be as fun as the game.

Just because configuration X is good for a tournament doesnt mean it fits your local scene anyway.

htj wrote:I deliberately try to avoid cookie cutter or popular lists out of spite and sheer bloody-mindedness. It's fundamental to my character, afraid to say.

I thought I was just becoming a cranky old man having the same mindset

Vermillion wrote:

htj wrote:I deliberately try to avoid cookie cutter or popular lists out of spite and sheer bloody-mindedness. It's fundamental to my character, afraid to say.

I thought I was just becoming a cranky old man having the same mindset

I was born one. Much as people malign the infamous Warmachine Page 5, it does have one really good comment on it. 'If you find a list that consistently works, try another.' Makes for a much more interesting gaming environment.

If that is so, then everyone would be bored to death playing chess because people bring the same units every time. Yet there are endless ways of playing it that makes every game different from each other, although there's no room for tweaking your army or the randomness of the terrain or mission.

Let's say every faction brings a certain net list on board. There are a lot of variables to affect the game: terrain, mission, deployment, luck, how good your opponent is, how bad you are, etc. etc.

Skill also has got nothing to do with it. Let's say you have two lists: one is something you have made and one is a tried and tested netlist. You have tested both extensively and found that the netlist fares better. Is it "skillful" to choose the inferior list?

With that said, a true WAAC player would (or should) avoid a cookie cutter list, because every other WAAC and their grandmother has already dissected those lists. There is power in bringing something unknown.

I'm pretty sure no-one got into chess because of the visual aesthetic or narrative nature of play, or perhaps the extensive backstory.

I play chess from time to time, but I play a lot more tabletop wargaming. They're not even close. It's a faulty comparison.

It's a fair point that generic lists don't necessarily equate generic play, though. Doesn't stop that sad little feeling you get when you see, yes, another iteration of that list again. The whole purpose of a Codex is to allow diversity in army design. It's not unfair to be disappointed when you fail to see it.

If skill has nothing to do with it, then perhaps likening it to chess shouldn't be done. Skill comes from the movement, knowing when to attack, where to move to, anticipating where you may need another unit.
If skill doesn't come into 40k then it may as well become flip a coin. Knowing how to use the terrain, how to deploy etc everything you have mentioned aside from luck, comes down to skill imo.
The luck factor is merely dice rolls and yes they can change outcomes of games.
The things you mention as variables aside from the dice rolls I don't believe influence an average game for an experienced player. Unit a is for purpose b, it will pursue that purpse for example. The twist comes when a list which is not anticipated is set down and purpose b doesn't exist.
And no, but tweaking the inferior list until you find it effective would be skillful

Also I did get bored of playing chess, until I found players who consistently beat me hands down so I could actually improve my skill at the game.

I think the main reason cookie cutter lists are so popular is due to the limited variety in missions. As soon as missions start to deviate from the norm, you see a new surge in list building that brings along new and exciting combinations.

However as most tournaments and social games follow the 3 deployment / 3 mission standard from the rulebook lists can be tailored pretty good to maximise effectiveness in that very small specific environment.

I think this is one of those things that could be expanded on a lot more. A long time ago there was a single White Dwarf article about random objectives added during games which was a nice addition, but was never expanded on. Similarly the Battle Missions book is too army specific to be used outside of campaigns / one-off battles.

I really think adding a couple more balanced scenario's, or even adding additional objectives (secondary, thirtiary) and how to incorporate these would be a nice way to broaden the majority of games played. And as such I do hope they will add these in the future (hopefully as standard in the next edition, but in White Dwarf or on the site itself would be very nice as well).

+1 free thinking

I always try to make sure I base my lists more by fluff than pure winning netlist spam, I find I tend to win more with an army I can get into rather than hive guard/rhino spam. But to each his own I suppose

I use to play CSM and Tyranids

I quit both because of the 2D of CSM and how if you dont take a tervigon you're screwed.

I now play Tau, why did i go from ok armies to baby seals with high powered guns? because i wanted something more than the same run of the mill.

I don't crisis spam, I actually DO take stealth suits, and use them effectivly. My cousin plays Necrons ever sense he started. He's been given options for "better" armies, but instead he loves to try new things. despite pretty much always losing, he still grows his army (atm 3 monoliths, a messload of destroyers, phariahs, if its in the necron rule book, he has it.) Funny part is he actually uses it all. at our LGS everyone laughs and beats him, but it doesnt deter him.

There are other fun options other than the "bloodangelstormravendreadclawbloodchaliceseverywhere" or "psyflemandreadandhalebardwithdriago" list.

I Googled ubberpowerfulspeshmarinearmyofawesomenessssss and the only result I got was this forum post.

htj wrote:I'm pretty sure no-one got into chess because of the visual aesthetic or narrative nature of play, or perhaps the extensive backstory.

I play chess from time to time, but I play a lot more tabletop wargaming. They're not even close. It's a faulty comparison.

And not everyone who play wargaming is there for the visual aesthetic or the narrative nature of play, or even the extensive backstory. For some people, playing a tabletop game is all about moving pieces and calculating dice probabilities. Some people are there for the competition. Different strokes for different folks.

Those games are close in the sense that they are games that requires skill and critical thinking to win against your opponent. They both require strategy and tactics. They are both representation of real battles. If the makers of chess encouraged people to customize and paint their pieces and write fluff about them (also sell Queen finecast resin blister packs for a lot of dollars), you might not think that the comparison is far-fetched.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote in his baseball essays about the way that game systems evolve, and he said a lot of stuff, but one thing he said I always think of whenever this discussion comes up. Briefly, Gould pointed out that the longer a system of rules is in place, the fewer successful strategies there are.

Because players have had time to figure out all the most successful strategies, and any deviation from the best strategies causes a loss of efficiency, you tend to see fewer and fewer strategies actually being used in play.

-In chess, nobody except a novice does a reversed St. George opening with the black pieces, because everybody knows how to exploit the weakness that it opens up. There's a huge number of possible openings in chess, but you pretty much always see one of a small number of standard openings because the game has been around so long that everybody understands the weaknesses of alternative openings.
-In U.S. football when I was a kid, you used to see pro players throwing laterals all the time. Now that everybody figured out that laterals aren't smart because they create a huge chance for a turnover without significant gain, no pro player ever throws a lateral.
-In soccer, everybody knows that defenders should stand right on the line when the other team has a goal kick. You're allowed to stand in other places, but everybody does it the same because standing somewhere else decreases the defensive efficiency of your team.

So it's the same with 40K. The longer a rules edition or codex is in existence, the more time players have to figure out the most efficient builds, and so you see fewer and fewer variations of those effective builds. It's permissible to play other builds, but in tournament environments where players are striving for the most efficiency, most deviations from the maxed out builds actually introduce weaknesses.

Very occasionally someone will come up with a new way of doing things that actually represents a new maximally-efficient build--like the 2004 Red Sox using sabermetrics to overhaul their player selection and gameplay strats in a way that let them win the championship. I think a lot of the contentious discussions in the Dakka tactics forum--like the ones about footdar and Draigowing lists--are really arguments about whether or not the variant builds represent a viable new strategy in this same kind of way.

And then, of course, if it does turn out to work, everybody jumps on the new bandwagon with the same effective strategies and you get a new equilibrium. Everybody in baseball uses sabermetrics now, and the Red Sox weren't able to keep winning using the same methods.

And finally, eventually the system itself changes, a new edition comes out, and the scramble to find the new most-effective strategies goes through another cycle.

I think the Internet accellerates the cycle, but I don't think it's something that can be avoided in the tournament circuit. There are alternatives to tournament play, though, if you don't like it.

Vermillion wrote:If skill has nothing to do with it, then perhaps likening it to chess shouldn't be done. Skill comes from the movement, knowing when to attack, where to move to, anticipating where you may need another unit.
If skill doesn't come into 40k then it may as well become flip a coin. Knowing how to use the terrain, how to deploy etc everything you have mentioned aside from luck, comes down to skill imo.
The luck factor is merely dice rolls and yes they can change outcomes of games.
The things you mention as variables aside from the dice rolls I don't believe influence an average game for an experienced player. Unit a is for purpose b, it will pursue that purpse for example. The twist comes when a list which is not anticipated is set down and purpose b doesn't exist.
And no, but tweaking the inferior list until you find it effective would be skillful

Also I did get bored of playing chess, until I found players who consistently beat me hands down so I could actually improve my skill at the game.

Um, where did I say that skill has nothing to do with it? What I have said is a skillful general would pick the best weapon in his arsenal. If it is a cookie cutter list, then use that. If it's a tweaked list, then use that. If it is a list he/she came up with by his/her lonesome, then use that. BUT if (and only if) it is proven that a netlist would garner you the most win, would it be considered skillful to handicap yourself to use an inferior list? Answer is no, if you don't mind me stating the obvious.

I also didn't say that tweaking an inferior list to suit your needs doesn't require skill.

Reading comprehension is also a skill, I might add. Somehow I hope you acquire that skill.

starsdawn wrote:

htj wrote:I'm pretty sure no-one got into chess because of the visual aesthetic or narrative nature of play, or perhaps the extensive backstory.

I play chess from time to time, but I play a lot more tabletop wargaming. They're not even close. It's a faulty comparison.

And not everyone who play wargaming is there for the visual aesthetic or the narrative nature of play, or even the extensive backstory. For some people, playing a tabletop game is all about moving pieces and calculating dice probabilities. Some people are there for the competition. Different strokes for different folks.

Those games are close in the sense that they are games that requires skill and critical thinking to win against your opponent. They both require strategy and tactics. They are both representation of real battles. If the makers of chess encouraged people to customize and paint their pieces and write fluff about them (also sell Queen finecast resin blister packs for a lot of dollars), you might not think that the comparison is far-fetched.

Perhaps, but I would hazard that the majority of people who play 40K play it for those reasons. Maybe that's a bit of a sweeping statement, but it definitely accounts for the majority in my experience.

The main problem I find with the chess comparison is that chess is a game with fixed playing pieces, and completely equal forces. You know exactly what you will be facing each time. If there is one major difference between chess and 40K that we can draw, it would have to be the fact that the army you build or face is mutable. When you end up with the same armies in every fight then that difference is lost. It's a key element of the game that has been removed.

But that is after all, only one difference. Personally, I find chess as far removed from 40K as it is from, say, Scrabble.

htj wrote:

starsdawn wrote:

htj wrote:I'm pretty sure no-one got into chess because of the visual aesthetic or narrative nature of play, or perhaps the extensive backstory.

I play chess from time to time, but I play a lot more tabletop wargaming. They're not even close. It's a faulty comparison.

And not everyone who play wargaming is there for the visual aesthetic or the narrative nature of play, or even the extensive backstory. For some people, playing a tabletop game is all about moving pieces and calculating dice probabilities. Some people are there for the competition. Different strokes for different folks.

Those games are close in the sense that they are games that requires skill and critical thinking to win against your opponent. They both require strategy and tactics. They are both representation of real battles. If the makers of chess encouraged people to customize and paint their pieces and write fluff about them (also sell Queen finecast resin blister packs for a lot of dollars), you might not think that the comparison is far-fetched.

Perhaps, but I would hazard that the majority of people who play 40K play it for those reasons. Maybe that's a bit of a sweeping statement, but it definitely accounts for the majority in my experience.

The main problem I find with the chess comparison is that chess is a game with fixed playing pieces, and completely equal forces. You know exactly what you will be facing each time. If there is one major difference between chess and 40K that we can draw, it would have to be the fact that the army you build or face is mutable. When you end up with the same armies in every fight then that difference is lost. It's a key element of the game that has been removed.

But that is after all, only one difference. Personally, I find chess as far removed from 40K as it is from, say, Scrabble.

Well me personally I play 40k because of the painting and modelling part, me being an art student and all. I DO have friends who look at it in a competitive setting mostly, and enjoy the other parts of the hobby much less. I have also played competitive Magic: the Gathering in the past and have found that there are players who enjoy the art of the cards. Some enjoy the stories. Others enjoy the game itself, win or lose. Others still are playing to win. That's why I don't discount any kind of attitude towards the game, as long as it is not destructive to the gaming community.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Stephen Jay Gould wrote in his baseball essays about the way that game systems evolve, and he said a lot of stuff, but one thing he said I always think of whenever this discussion comes up. Briefly, Gould pointed out that the longer a system of rules is in place, the fewer successful strategies there are.

Because players have had time to figure out all the most successful strategies, and any deviation from the best strategies causes a loss of efficiency, you tend to see fewer and fewer strategies actually being used in play.

-In chess, nobody except a novice does a reversed St. George opening with the black pieces, because everybody knows how to exploit the weakness that it opens up. There's a huge number of possible openings in chess, but you pretty much always see one of a small number of standard openings because the game has been around so long that everybody understands the weaknesses of alternative openings.
-In U.S. football when I was a kid, you used to see pro players throwing laterals all the time. Now that everybody figured out that laterals aren't smart because they create a huge chance for a turnover without significant gain, no pro player ever throws a lateral.
-In soccer, everybody knows that defenders should stand right on the line when the other team has a goal kick. You're allowed to stand in other places, but everybody does it the same because standing somewhere else decreases the defensive efficiency of your team.

So it's the same with 40K. The longer a rules edition or codex is in existence, the more time players have to figure out the most efficient builds, and so you see fewer and fewer variations of those effective builds. It's permissible to play other builds, but in tournament environments where players are striving for the most efficiency, most deviations from the maxed out builds actually introduce weaknesses.

Very occasionally someone will come up with a new way of doing things that actually represents a new maximally-efficient build--like the 2004 Red Sox using sabermetrics to overhaul their player selection and gameplay strats in a way that let them win the championship. I think a lot of the contentious discussions in the Dakka tactics forum--like the ones about footdar and Draigowing lists--are really arguments about whether or not the variant builds represent a viable new strategy in this same kind of way.

And then, of course, if it does turn out to work, everybody jumps on the new bandwagon with the same effective strategies and you get a new equilibrium. Everybody in baseball uses sabermetrics now, and the Red Sox weren't able to keep winning using the same methods.

And finally, eventually the system itself changes, a new edition comes out, and the scramble to find the new most-effective strategies goes through another cycle.

I think the Internet accellerates the cycle, but I don't think it's something that can be avoided in the tournament circuit. There are alternatives to tournament play, though, if you don't like it.

Agreed.

I was writing lists before I ever checked out the net for good variations and guess what? There were my lists, almost to a T. I don't think I play a cookie cutter list but others might.
I run two versions of my CSM force one shooty and one choppy depending on what I'm up against. But to be honest I don't think I've repeated the exact same list for different games.
Personally I like changing my list around and giving myself a challenge... and I'm known as a power player. People who rely on a netlist and don't deviate or experiment aren't playing tactically or strategically. They're just relying on good dice rolls when the time comes. That's gambling.

@starsdawn.

Good point, well made. Still, I'm never going to be a fan of using a list you found online because it's powerful. It's the kind of thing that takes away my enjoyment of the game. You're right though, in the end it all comes down to why you play.

That was a really fine post Flavius... one of the best I've seen in a long time.

With the rumors floating around about the possible changes in 6th edition... I wonder if they would be (if true), enough of a change in the underlying rules to scramble things up significantly to change the current metagame.

I have never gone to the internet to built a list. I have posted list so others may see giant holes in it that I missed, but that is not the same.

I also like to do different things with my Blood Angels and Eldar lists.

Looking at the sporting analogies that Flavuis touched on - this is why I don't like the idea of fixed lists. I don't know too much about American sports but I'm pretty sure that all the big ones, just like Soccer (football), use squads and field a team from within that squad when they play. Who they choose to deploy is up to them and they can bring on substitutions from that squad.

Take all comers lists are very general so as well as being able to adapt to most situations, they won't be able to field the more exotic options they have because their applications are too specialist - they will only excel in a few situations.

I'd like to see a system that allows players to submit 'squad' lists from which you choose your actual list as you play each game. This would add more variety. Maybe, depending on what they choose to do with 6th, they could even allow you to place troops in reserve that aren't part of your list and then bring those on in addition to what you already have on the battle field or even as substitutions - kind of like back up troops coming on to replace injured ones. I obviously haven't had time to work out how in practice that would work but it's just an idea.

GW could probably do many things to freshen the game up but to me, the idea of playing with fixed lists just shortens the life span of each edition, no matter what they do with it. It would add a greater tactical element to the game and reduce the number of samey lists you see to allow players to use a 'squad' for each battle instead of just a fixed force since you would field units not only based on the opponent you face but also the game type and particular situation within each battle.

GW could probably do many things to freshen the game up but to me, the idea of playing with fixed lists just shortens the life span of each edition, no matter what they do with it. It would add a greater tactical element to the game and reduce the number of samey lists you see to allow players to use a 'squad' for each battle instead of just a fixed force since you would field units not only based on the opponent you face but also the game type and particular situation within each battle.

They've done this a little bit with Apocalypse and their "anything goes" stlye because you literally have no idea what you can get from one list to the next. but I'd like to see them add some more stuff for smaller games because a lot of us don't have, nor care to have, 3000+ point armies.

msteward wrote:

GW could probably do many things to freshen the game up but to me, the idea of playing with fixed lists just shortens the life span of each edition, no matter what they do with it. It would add a greater tactical element to the game and reduce the number of samey lists you see to allow players to use a 'squad' for each battle instead of just a fixed force since you would field units not only based on the opponent you face but also the game type and particular situation within each battle.

They've done this a little bit with Apocalypse and their "anything goes" stlye because you literally have no idea what you can get from one list to the next. but I'd like to see them add some more stuff for smaller games because a lot of us don't have, nor care to have, 3000+ point armies.

The problem with smaller games, is not all armies scale down. So something would have to change. I am in favor of adjusting FOC's based on point levels.

IN my opinion, WAAC gaming stinks. That is why I no longer enter tournis where comp is not judged. Judging comp helps reduce the number of net lists that you see. also... most net list players are well... i guess i wont say it as it might lead to flames etc. Either way playing net list spam is never an option.

There are 3 ork players that I know of at the store near me. All 3 are WAAC and thus run Ghaz and nobs in battlewagons for wound shenanigans, with a player who recently switched from SM to orks and is also doing ghaz BW nob spam.

There are about 3-4 IG players at the nearby store. Again they are all WAAC and thus play melta vets in chimeras with vendettas and a few LR's.

3 GK players who run purifier spam or draigo wing.

4 BA players who play stormraven spam.

There is 1 necron player at this store, 1 eldar player, 1 dark eldar player, 1 CSM player, and now I am the only vanilla marines player.

These WAAC players have run the same lists for almost or over a year, and come in once or twice a week and do the same thing each and every time.

I would pull my eyes out if I had to play the same list for that long.

When I get called for being cheesy with a ridiculous amount of melta, power fists, or vindicators in my list, when the IG player(s) have 4 chimeras, 2 hydra batteries, 3 LRBT, 1 LRD, 1 hellhound, 1 manticore, and 1 medusa (THIRTEEN VEHICLES!! 13!!) I have to resist the urge to do some BRB slapping.

BronzeJon wrote:
4 BA players who play stormraven spam.

Never thought I would see the day that 3 Stormravens were considered WAAC.

I would assume that this issue of cookie cutter lists really becomes an issue at tournaments and other competitive events, after all if a winning combination of units is found why experiment if the whole point is to win? On the other hand playing with friends or at a friendly gaming club where for instance you might agree with your friends to one night bring the fluffiest armies you can make from your codex or you say this is no mech night, no one can use dedicated transports your guys have to hoof it, or you challenge a marine player to bring a list that uses just scouts as troops then in the end you can craft a more fun game.

In essence the cookie cutter phenomenon should just be limited to those who want to win. Those who want to have fun in their game might run their army all on foot or have a very fluffy list or run units that no one really sees. The end result is if you want to have fun the longfang spam and such is not going to give you that.

Okay you can have 5 terminators with stormbolters and powerfists for 200 points or 5 terminators with TH & SS for 200 points. One gives you 50/50 wounding capability in ranged combat the other doubles your chance to survive a vaporizing shot. Which would the smart general take? This is the problem. Same cost with an overwhelming advantage to take one over the other.
If say your 5 termies with stormbolters cost you 200 and the 5 with thunderhammers cost you 300 you would have to think about the cost effectiveness.

This is an issue with each and every codex in that you get
idiot choices to make an effective list. Or when doing a codex vs codex comparison 1 provides X firepower and X survivability at the given points total while the other providex X+1 firepower and X+3 survivability for the same cost. That leads to one choice being the right choice.

This in no way means that the one with an advantage will win automatically but it does mean that if all things are equal - quality of general, dice luck, scenario, setup - that army with the advantage should win every time. That is why we all go through the practice of examining a codex and building the list that is "just right." Some codexes make this process hard while others make it infantile simple to build the list.

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

I used to be a fluffy bunny player, but now I proudly play netlists at tournaments. I even make it a point sometimes to play pure netlists, exactly as designed by the original Internet powergamer with no variations, to see how they work. I also always make it a point to tell my opponents where on the Internet I got my source lists. The games I look forward to at tournaments are the games against the best players and/or most optimized powergame lists out there. The challenge is the fun part for me.

But I don't go around bashing people who would rather play a different way.