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.

was reading the title of posts and forums and i was curios.

Barring a few really bad units or bad builds.

Where does your opinion lay?

Net listing. skill makes little difference and its about who has the best army

Skill. A great general can take an out of date army or a non optimized list and still win.

And dice gods can stay out of this question. :p drat you dice gods to the bowels of speck

I make a point of not playing competitively, but personally, I feel I would rather win with a non-optimised army that I've chosen because I like the look/feel/fluff over pure maths. There is so much complaining about the balance in this game, but it really only occurs when netlists are used regularly. Netlists are just not good for the game as a whole, I think, as there's every chance they'll drive away a new player or be the last straw for a long-time gamer, which means less players and people enjoying this hobby.

The idea of net listing is silly. You can take as good an army as you want, but a player with a lot more experience will almost always beat you. In that regard, almost everyone will try to build skills predominantly. I've only met one guy who net listed everything and expected to win and he didn't stay in the game very long.

On the other hand, it makes me sad that there's a difference between "fluffy" and "powerful". You'd think that fluffy stuff was used because it's the best available for those armies, yet we rarely ever see that on the tabletop. The most fun I, and probably most other people who've tried them, have ever had in this game was in a campaign with highly restricted list building and usually unbalanced points in any given mission. 40k used to be really good for stuff like that in 4e/5e, and it's been lost recently thanks to the huge assault nerfs and general increase in bullets per point. The game actually works really well in those games to the extent it's almost absurd that it's not what the entire system is build around, rather than the weird random missions pick ups they recommend for most games in the BRB. This is also why, IMO, the Horus Heresy books are so good - they ARE all about the campaign, not just having random meaningless battles. The draw of the game is the background and models - for all the vitriol against GW (admittedly mostly justified), these are so good that we play regardless of the poor rules and writing. They clearly know this - 6e tries to ram "forging a narrative" down your neck as much as it can - but they seem to be afraid to shake it up in case it hurts sales more.

Basically, I don't think even one person will click netlists on this poll. Even the people who use them do so out of a feeling of "I must do this to remain competitive" rather than actual enjoyment.

The problem is that the more experienced player definitely does not always win. For example I remember somebody saying they had somebody who had never played Tau before try out a triptide list and came 2nd in a tournament.

People always try to say it is the player not the list but I can easily say the list matters much more. No matter how hard you try a fluffy night lords army will never beat eldar wave serpent spam.

Nobody wants to admit it but if you play any more than extremely casual (who likes to lose anyway?) your list is always influenced by what people post online. That's why forums like this exist.

I agree with the above in that netlists are used out of necessity. I would love to run my Khorne Berserkers army but it's not fun to show up to a game store just to pack my models up.

This poll seems a bit silly to me. It's turning the complexity of how games of 40k are own and trying to distill it down to either netlist or skill. There are a lot of other factors.

Having a good list matters, but only if you have a plan for what to do with it. Riptides don't win games. The Kroot outflanking onto an objective do. You have to play the game. Dakka is all well and good, but playing the mission tops it out.

The last tournament I went to, the top necron player took Zandrekh, O'Byron and Canoptek Spyders without scarabs. A v different kind of list to what one expects usually from crons. He won another tournament I was at earlier last year with a wraith wing list and maybe he decided that list was familiar and therefor to try something a little different?

Anyway - the point is a "net"list isn't important. A good list with a plan is.

I used to constantly emulate netlists all the time, particularly with my Mechanized Marines and I typically did far worse than right now where everything I do is based on my own logic.

Even those people that do netlist probably won't even admit it, so the poll is pretty pointless. Netlisting is common, at tournaments and competitive environments its typically not hard to find the list trend patterns with stuff like Triptide/HYMP Broadside spam, Wave Serpent spam, Flying Circus, etc. A big reason they're popular because the people who play them probably found them on the net.

It may sound generic and thoughtless, but you do need to find a playstyle that suits you. I detest all round units and like raw strength with gimmicks added in. I think that making key parts of your list as redundant as possible is a good concept, and having two or more of each type of unit is almost mandatory, but I also believe against what some people do that taking the odd single slightly more expensive unit can be a viable tactic in some circumstances.

Kholzerino wrote:
This poll seems a bit silly to me.

If it helps im sitting at work manning a tech board. so yeah a little brain dead sillyness was involved. i am still curious how people feel about net listing. giving who i play with regularly.

this has been very informative and entertaining.

Thank you Dakka

I don't think this is a real dilemma.

Skill in 40k is learning to play the odds better with the resources you have. Bringing a netlist is bringing a certain set of resources.

Bringing more resources means that you don't need to play as good of odds to get get the same outcome as if you played better odds with less stuff. As such, I can see the contrast that's trying to be made, but still... bringing a netlist does not mean you don't still learn to play odds better, and learning to play the odds better isn't a guarantee of a win in the first place.

To respond to what I think you're trying to go for, I'd say "skill", in that there isn't nearly as much challenge in playing a fine-tuned high-power list as there is in playing with a bunch of interesting junk. I'd rather figure out how to make interesting junk work than to go through the empty motions of a netlist-on-netlist game.

Your poll is disingenuous: it is entirely possible to develop skill 'by' net-listing and/or with a net-list, they are not mutually exclusive like your options imply.

 Neorealist wrote:
Your poll is disingenuous: it is entirely possible to develop skill 'by' net-listing and/or with a net-list, they are not mutually exclusive like your options imply.

While the original post doesn't expand a great deal, I think the intent was (at least I believe it was) not to say the two are mutually exclusive, only to find out which people thought was more important. And there IS a very big divide on this issue, and I find the poll numbers oddly not representing the vocal opinion.

The question seems to boil down to which you consider more important: the army list you play (the implication being that in a world where there is a 'best' way to do something, someone will always have already found it and posted it on the internet) or the way you play the list you have.

Personally, I think that skills trump netlists. I actually think that netlists lead to a stagnation of thought. You can easily find scores of threads on this and other sites decrying units or even whole codexes as 'weak' or 'broken,' even though they are still perfectly serviceable in the hands of a skilled player. By the same token, there is no 'best' codex, and no 'best' army list for any given codex. (Again, this is just my opinion.)

Some people, on the other side of the coin, feel like there is a single 'right' way to do something, a single list that will be the BEST and most optimal list for any given codex. I can't really expand on that point of view too much, because I find it to be quite alien. Fortunately, if you want to learn more about that kind of playstyle, the overwhelming majority of tactical advice will be given from that school of thought.

I've seen players from both sides of the road on this win tournaments, so there's definitely merits to both arguments.

Of course, given that there is little to go on in the original post, I could have completely misinterpreted the question.

I don't like to follow the Netlist. However, this does coincide with my own thoughts. At the dawn of 6th, I immediately converted two Flyrants with Devourers and saw Biovores and Tervigons as must have units. I won't claim I inspired the 5th ed Nid net-list, but I happened to agree with it and made my changes before it was popularized as what was "best". Now, with a new dex, no pure Net list has been established, but I have already made up my mind on what units I like. I happen to disagree with the "Mawlocs are good" theory, I honestly think they're not worth it. I decided MC spam plus BastionThropes was the way to go as soon as the Spanish scans came online (woo for reading Spanish!) and I still think it is. However, I think Flying circus will rival that as the top two Nid lists. Part of the reason I avoid FMC spam is because I have a GT in a month and can't afford 3 Crones, so I must stick to the land MCs I own.

Having a good list and being a good player are both factors that will influence your ability to win, and they are by no means mutually exclusive. However, you will have a greater understanding of a list you built and optimised yourself than one you just copied online.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Your poll is disingenuous: it is entirely possible to develop skill 'by' net-listing and/or with a net-list, they are not mutually exclusive like your options imply.

While the original post doesn't expand a great deal, I think the intent was (at least I believe it was) not to say the two are mutually exclusive, only to find out which people thought was more important. And there IS a very big divide on this issue, and I find the poll numbers oddly not representing the vocal opinion.

The question seems to boil down to which you consider more important: the army list you play (the implication being that in a world where there is a 'best' way to do something, someone will always have already found it and posted it on the internet) or the way you play the list you have.

Personally, I think that skills trump netlists. I actually think that netlists lead to a stagnation of thought. You can easily find scores of threads on this and other sites decrying units or even whole codexes as 'weak' or 'broken,' even though they are still perfectly serviceable in the hands of a skilled player. By the same token, there is no 'best' codex, and no 'best' army list for any given codex. (Again, this is just my opinion.)

Some people, on the other side of the coin, feel like there is a single 'right' way to do something, a single list that will be the BEST and most optimal list for any given codex. I can't really expand on that point of view too much, because I find it to be quite alien. Fortunately, if you want to learn more about that kind of playstyle, the overwhelming majority of tactical advice will be given from that school of thought.

I've seen players from both sides of the road on this win tournaments, so there's definitely merits to both arguments.

Of course, given that there is little to go on in the original post, I could have completely misinterpreted the question.

actually you nailed it amazingly well. i will also agree that i do not always convey my ideas well.

if i seamed disingenuous i apologize. Lost in net translation. i am very much interested in how people view the world. just finished an assignment on in in my class today =P.

I defiantly feel that there is some mix of both of those as well as a liberal helping from the dice gods to win. i have seen amazing lists and generals defeated when the dice gods favor falls on the new player. i wanted to see where people put more stock. perhaps if i phrased the question in modern terms as apposed to a play on Shakespeare.....

Part of the problem here is this. Yes, if skill is the odds you play with respect to the actual die rolls times your list strength, then you can have a stronger game with either skill or list strength.

But what happens when you show up with a fine-tuned netlist, and your opponent does as well? How are you going to improve the strength of your game by making your list stronger? Even if you can manage to eke out a tiny bit more strength, that relative strength difference between your new list and your opponent's is going to be microscopic.

Put another way, the moment you and your opponent get a netlist is the moment where list strength stops being a contributing factor to who wins the game. Of course, if you and your opponent both bring the same list, then this literally becomes true (differences in list strength have no impact of any kind at all), but even with dissimilar lists, it's possible to make that difference too small to really count for much.

As such, what's the point of who can make a better list, if anyone with an internet connection can simply download one of the best lists creatable at the time?

What list building skills really mean, then, isn't the ability to make stronger lists, but the ability to do other things. Making lists that are weaker than the strongest lists, but are the strongest way of putting together a weaker style than the strongest style, for example, or making lists which have a very particular power level to make the game more balanced (especially if your opponent isn't very skilled because they've been relying on list power to win games (like a lot of 40k players)).

I mean, in a way, you can sort of thing of it like asking a formula 1 driver what's more important, driver skill or the quality of the car. Of course they're both important, but given that all the cars are practically the same, the only difference is who is driving them.

But, of course, since this is 40k, the only difference is whose dice roll better, but I digress...

I'll try a netlist and then see what I do and don't like about it.

Whats the point of playing a game using units I don't want to use? I have rarely seen a net list that I would actually find fun to play. As such, if your not having fun, your not really going to invest the time needed to make a netlist actually work. You cannot just plop down a net list and let it play itself. You still have to choose what to attack, when to attack it, and more importantly, how to get it into position to attack in the first place. A net list will not tell you these things, only practice will. And if I'm constantly thinking, man this unit here would work great in this situation (one not represented on the netlist) I'm never going to win with the list I brought.

The poll is kinda skewed. Most people like to think that they win because of their awesome skills and not because of that Taudar riptide spam list that they are using.

What counts and a net list and what doesn't? We are constantly talking about how units preform, what units an army should take, what load outs should be on that unit. Because we only have so many units and points to work with people are going to wind up with the same or similar lists.

Lets look at tau. I ask what are the good units. I am told Buffmander is the best HQ, Riptides are the best elite, kroot are the best troop, nothing is good in fast attack, and broadsides are the best heavy support.

So I go to make a list:
Buffmander
3 riptides
4 units of kroot
3 broadsides

That list looks a lot like most lists on the net. Am I net listing even though I arrived at a similar result without copying? Or the fact that so many lists have "deathstars" in them. Most every seerstar list is going to look largely the same. You spend 700 pts on the star. 240pts on a wraithknight, You don't have much left to really distinguish your list from another.list.

So if there is not much of a difference from a net list and a researched list, who really cares what kind of list you should use? The only thing I actually have against netlisting is I think it is stupid to netlist in a known meta. If I know I am going to be facing a lot more dark eldar than what most netlists are prepared for I am going to build my list to have more anti-light armor and less anti-heavy infantry. Because a s7 ap4 shot is pretty good against a venom but bad against a riptide while a s6 ap2 shot is good against a riptide but bad against a venom.

Personally, I'll always take advice and build the best list I can, but anything considered Cheesy or Spammy is a non-negotiable no from me. I like to have fun, and I like my opponent to also have fun.

To be fair...most people who net list don't think they net list.

Many explain it away by saying that their army s unique as it has a few squad sizes and special weapons were different.

I can't begin to explain how many non-net list unique leafblowers and GK autodread spam and cronair lists that followed this trend.

lambsandlions wrote:What counts and a net list and what doesn't?

Generally if they have a name. If I tell you I'm running a draigowing, or a leafblower, or a triptide list, you'll know more or less what I'm taking.

I agree that a lot of people like to pretend they don't netlist by making tiny alterations, but the names of netlists are rather broad, to my ears.

I've got an interesting observation. When i ask for a Fun game where i bring stuff like wierdboyz, sag meks, crazy kanz, insane stormboyz, some looted wagonz with boomgunz, tankbustaz with bomm squigs...half of the time i face people that bring something like mass zerks, witches in raiders, some fancy looking dreadnaughts accompanied by vanguard vets...all in all, things that they really want to use cause models look awesome/are fluffy/just generally fun to use. And this games feel truly awesome no matter if i win or loose. And next time we meet - we bring some new stuff.
But another half of the time i face a riptide spam, gravgun spam, serpent spam, fmc spam...and people who bring this say "But it's FUN!111 Oh, and i've taken a squad of 5 banshees! Fun gaming, hell yeah!". And the games are alwayz boring. Even if i manage to win. And we don't meet next time.

I bet you know that feeling when you see a table with 6 serpents on one side and chenkov conscripts with some lrbt and roughriders on the other.

Sure, that's just my opinion, but imballanced overpowered lists alwayz kill fun and are not worth wasting time on playing with or against. That's a hobby fun game for me - not a munchkin sport game. People just have different understanding of the word 'Fun'.