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.

Iorek: I called someone a name, I got beat down. Someone calls me a name, and nothing? Yeah, watch that respect level drop.

We clearly need an understanding of what metagaming is, and how to define it. Here's my meager offering:

" the Meta-game is the game beyond the game."

Any action, whether in list construction, intelligence gathering, scouting opponents, thinking about missions/terrain/enemy lists, etc can be part of metagaming.

I think my definition fits all other definitions offered, because it is actually insanely broad. It also is a very abstract noun, it doesn't translate well into phrases like "interenet metagame" or "Midwest Metagame." That's because what people are referring to are actually paradigms, or accumulations of generally accepted wisdom. I think that's the aspect that Stelek finds fault with (the generally accepted wisdom), and relying on that is what makes a player mediocre. Of course, metagaming neither starts nor ends with "what armies are popular on Dakka this month."

In terms of list construction, the need to meta-game goes beyond what armies you will face, but what targets you'll see. The only reason to take a Lascannon over a heavy bolter is if you expect vehicles or 2+ saves. The only reason to ever take a power weapon is if you expect to get into hand to hand. In an even more basic form, the meta-game includes the codices, terrain, missions, and even the concept of game turns, points, and winning and losing....

What I think GBF was referring to in terms of metagame in his first post was the idea that there are a relative handful of top notch armies, and all others are far weaker, to the point of having little chance of winning. That's a really narrow definition. I think that there are units and army builds and by extension codices that are simply superior to the rest. With the cycling out of the old CSM and Ork books (by far the best and by far the weakest), the current clutch of books are pretty balanced, and among the many variables in a game (mission, matchup, player skill, time, luck) army matchups are just one of many.

So, what is metagaming, and how do players use it? By what Stelek described, he does it all: scouts opponents, builds lists to handel any opponent (not just the interenet bad guys, but including them as well), has a deep knowledge of all the codices, etc. To simply narrow the Metagame to checking out hot builds is a misnomer.

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Don’t you meta-game whenever you build a list?

Is list creation part of the game? Then it isn't metagaming.

Blackmoor wrote:#2. When I build a list for a large tournament I ask myself “Can my army beat tri-falcon Eldar, MEQs, Godzilla Nids, and Ork hordes?” If my answer is no to any of these, I change my list.

Closer but not quite, it's still the game within the game...which isn't metagaming.

I don't ask myself those questions, they're irrelevant. Any army can 'beat' any army. When you tool your army to beat specific armies, you stretch your army out and an unexpected build kills you. I consider that a bad thing.

I'd rather have a balanced army that can be played well than put my list into an unbalanced state and open myself up to other army builds.

Well said Polonius. Thank you. You are correct in your assumptions (about me).

Another broad definition of meta gaming by Polonius. Basically anything outside of playing the game still related to the game is meta gaming. What I find funny (as in haaa haaa) is the many definitions people are bantering around in regard to the subject. Think about this... there is the old proverb:

If walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck.

Not true when you take into account coot, geese and swans.

G

Stelek wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Don’t you meta-game whenever you build a list?

Is list creation part of the game? Then it isn't metagaming.

Blackmoor wrote:#2. When I build a list for a large tournament I ask myself “Can my army beat tri-falcon Eldar, MEQs, Godzilla Nids, and Ork hordes?” If my answer is no to any of these, I change my list.

Closer but not quite, it's still the game within the game...which isn't metagaming.

Stelek, these statements lead me to conclude that you do not yet grasp the definition of metagame. Yes you look for "outside of the game" information but you use that information to make IN-GAME decisions. Looking at tournament trends is "outside of the game" information, using this information to skew your list to have favorable matchups against this field is an in game decision. This is metagaming.

Stelek wrote:
I don't ask myself those questions, they're irrelevant. Any army can 'beat' any army. When you tool your army to beat specific armies, you stretch your army out and an unexpected build kills you. I consider that a bad thing.

I'd rather have a balanced army that can be played well than put my list into an unbalanced state and open myself up to other army builds.

You are quite correct here Stelek. By metagaming you skew your list to defeat the popular/expected opposition. Metagaming your list to an extreme may leave you vulnerable to "unexpected" lists. All very true points, that just have nothing to do with the question of whether "a metagame exists in 40k" (i.e. the topic of this thread).

You may not like or need to metagame (verb), but metagames (noun) do exist.

@GreenBlowFly: I think the issue you are having is trying to apply metagames and metagaming to non-competitive enviornments. The purpose of metagaming is to make it easier for you to win in a given enviornment. In local game clubs where players play with the models they like, armies based on fluff, and have games just for fun, there is no win at all cost mentality. You said it yourself, to "metagame" in such in an enviornment will just lead you to have fewer and fewer opponents to play later.

That does not invalidate the fact that a metagame does exist in competitive enviornments, though it may differ locally, regionally, and nationally.

If the designers would tell us what are the new winning combos for V edition I would consider that meta gaming. It would be directly from the source. I think everyone here agrees that there is no one overall meta game that everybody adheres to.

G

In terms of the question of if there is a meta-game to 40k, we obviously need a definition. Clearly there is enough out of game information (Landraiders exist) that influences decisions made out of game (I should take lascannons) and in game (That landraider is empty, so i can shoot something else now) that there clearly is a metagame of some sort.

Is there a metagame like we all sort of know it, as in a general pantheon of killer lists and units that need to be planned around? Of course there is. The question isn't if one exists, but rather how good a predicitor is it? I think the answer to that question is "not very."

Part of the confusion is the dual use of "metagame," both as a process by which to game the game, and as a collection of elite armies.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If the designers would tell us what are the new winning combos for V edition I would consider that meta gaming. It would be directly from the source. I think everyone here agrees that there is no one overall meta game that everybody adheres to.

G

I think this is true only in that it doesn't really say much. Virtually everybody nudges generalist lists a little more toward MeQ killing, and most people put a very high premium on anti-tank. How can players adhere to a metagame?

I think that if you told a player to design a list, and that he'd be taken to random gaming store to face a random player from that store, he'd take a balanced list that had plenty of Anti-Meq options, and wouldn't depend on heavy cover.

there are a few precepts that I think most people acknowledge and hew to.

Here is another definition of the term meta game I found on the internet:

Used often in the internet for online games, Roleplaying boards, and chatroom's. It is when a person reads what a character is doing, and thus assumes he knows everything what that character has done- without witnessing any of those events at all because A) his character was not there B)The action was in a different area of the rpg 'world' or C) the person is just a tool!

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:If the designers would tell us what are the new winning combos for V edition I would consider that meta gaming. It would be directly from the source. I think everyone here agrees that there is no one overall meta game that everybody adheres to.

G

I would argue that the tens of thousands of minds (some very brilliant) playing the game would stress the ruleset and find the strongest combos much better than a small group of designers and playtesters and I would have lots of historical evidence in many many games on my side.

You see here at Dakka a lot of people still think that beating MEQ is the most important aspect of winning in a tournament environment but in fact there are a lot less SM/Chaos players out there now... so I think designing a list to beat power armor is not that good of an idea. One of the nice things about playing MEQ is the hobby is centered around our armies, for instance just about anything we want to field is available in plastic.

G

Polonius wrote:
Part of the confusion is the dual use of "metagame," both as a process by which to game the game, and as a collection of elite armies.

Just to clarify my position, I do NOT believe the second definition, "metagame = collection of elite armies" is the correct one.

So, part of the problem is that we need to rephrase the question:

"To what, if any, extent should the army demographics in a community affect the list building or other planning of a player that is attempting to use as much knowledge as possible to be successful."

It's essnetially "how important is the metagame to metagaming," which is certainly a step up from "is metagaming real?" in terms of accurately phrased questions.

I was a bouncer once. Well... In reality I shucked oysters, swept up and helped the bands move their stuff in before we opened but the manager told me with a straight face that I was a bouncer so it must be true! Never mind that I'm 5'7" and I was barely 165 lbs then and some of that was paunch.

I did call the police once when a guy kept threating to hit his date. Yeah. Mess with the bar and ya mess with me! I'll sic the cops on ya!

I guess it's like when I went deer hunting with my cousins I was carrying a rifle though it was well understood that with my thickie glasses and slow reflexes I would not be shooting the deer. You don't want someone to feel y'know...all just barely unter gamma. In fact I was along because I was a cousin and I was pretty good at dressing the deer on the spot for the butcher. I'd gut skin and quarter without making a huge stinking mess and we'd each grab a quarter and head back to the jeep leaving the head for... whatever eats deer heads. Ants probably.

The metagame(as percived by magic players) is actually the best decks you think will be dominating in one "place". This may differ alot from where you play, diffrent local stores.. regionals or national. But usually with internet around they arent all that spread. If you are thinking of another type of metagame this might not apply here.

Ofc that applies in warhammer also to some degree. If you know that everyone in your store plays Nidzilla, trifalcon or orc horde, you can plan for that and bring some stuff that might be to your advantage. If you then by chance gets to face of against some "rogue" builds you might be in a serious disadvantge but if you build against the mayority you will have an advantage. There definently are diffrent builds that are better against some types of armies. There usually is a reason why some lists are showing up in the top 10s more then others.

palaeomerus wrote:I was a bouncer once.

... whatever eats deer heads. Ants probably.

Probably the best post in the thread. You have my thanks.

Polonius wrote:"To what, if any, extent should the army demographics in a community affect the list building or other planning of a player that is attempting to use as much knowledge as possible to be successful."

That is a great question.

My attempt at an answer would be, if army demographic analysis provided clear dominant build data by dominant players, then gearing your list to defeat those builds would be prudent.

No metagame?
What?
Talk sense.
There's always a metagame. It just varies depending on your local play environment. Even if you travel around a lot, you're still going to have a metagame of sorts, just a more diverse one.

Kadun, I think you're the one who doesn't understand what the metagame is or even what it means.

Building a army to specifically beat another army isn't metagaming.

Metagaming that you know not to overbalance your list with anti-army A capability because if you then run into army B you will lose.

Avoiding the rock/paper/scissor effect is alot of what you want to gain from metagaming.

I think you should read what Polonius said again.

Here is the Wikipedia definition:

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. In other words, sometimes using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions.

Examples of metagaming

* There is a special set of moves in chess which allows a player to win in four moves. Competitor A has been watching Competitor B play chess, and the past five games in a row Competitor B has attempted to use this four-move win. When Competitor A sits down to play against Competitor B, Competitor A will be metagaming if he/she plays in a way that will easily thwart the four-move checkmate before Competitor B makes it obvious that this is what he/she is doing.

So now we're arguing about definitions.

Personally, I always thought "Metagaming" meant that you built a list that could handle Marines, Godzilla, Skimmer Spam, and (now) Horde Orks.

I figure that's the best example of "meta-gaming" when building an army list, but I guess the rest of you can argue it out.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:So now we're arguing about definitions.

Personally, I always thought "Metagaming" meant that you built a list that could handle Marines, Godzilla, Skimmer Spam, and (now) Horde Orks.

I figure that's the best example of "meta-gaming" when building an army list, but I guess the rest of you can argue it out.

It's the best example, but I think it's far from exhastive. Essentially, GBF related that his Shooty marines suffered against some non-optimized builds, which led to the assertion that the "metagame" was fauly or perhaps useless. Since there was an assertion followed by debate, definitions were needed.

While making sure your army can handle top tier armies, my assertion is that that is an important but not ultimate step.

Really, this thread simply teaches what most of us know: that top tier lists exist, but aren't that far above the rest to eliminate player skill and luck from any game, and that spoiler builds can often be staggeringly effective.

We're just re-inventing the whell to get to that point first.

I posted the first part of that earlier.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:You see here at Dakka a lot of people still think that beating MEQ is the most important aspect of winning in a tournament environment but in fact there are a lot less SM/Chaos players out there now... so I think designing a list to beat power armor is not that good of an idea.

I think you're right about this.

Two years ago at Adepticon, I didn't play against a single non-MEQ army. Last year, it was about 50/50. This year, I think I played against one Marine army in the team tournament, and one in the gladiator, so 2/11. My experiences at RTTs have been similar over the same time span.

From what I have heard (a meta game reference... hurrr hurr hurr!!! ROFLMAO) it sounds like SM in general will be a lot more popular and back to their old winning ways once the new V edition rolls out. I know we have been bemoaning the Dark Angels codex with a vengeance but in truth I think this army will be a lot more competitive by the end of this summer. For instance you can take bikes and/or terminators as scoring units, plus you can split up the bikes into dear old combat squads. Bikes are fast plus hard to tie down while terminators are resilient and shine in both shooting and assaults. I am telling you that Belial with a command squad and the banner is nothing to sneeze at... four base attacks for a terminator with a pair of lightning claws is brutal. Sammael ramming vehicles in his landspeeder could take out a couple tanks in one turn. You see things have a way of changing quickly. The only way to stay on top of things is to get out and play a lot of games. I have always learned a lot more about the game playing rather than sitting around playing the good old meta game on the internet. Playing games is definitely NOT meta gaming as defined here or else we would have a paradox on our hands, and believe me we don't want that by any means.

G

Phryxis wrote:*snip whole post*

Actually... yeah. You're kinda right.

I want Ed from 4 years ago back. 'Least he was entertaining. :(

BYE

I'm surprised that people are still trying to have a real conversation about this. I didn't think discussion and Stelek's ego could coexist in the same thread...

I don't think the definition of "metagame" is that tough. Its the game beyond the game, as has been said.

Playing the game is obviously "the game."

Building lists? Some might debate it, but I think we all can agree that list building is part of the game.

The metagame are the factors outside the game's rules that influence the game.

This can amount to basing your list choices on what you expect to see in other armies. The actual utility of this may be questioned, but if you're building a list (an in game choice), based on what people have brought to past GTs (an out of game variable) that's part of the metagame.

You might also schmooze the other players before the game, in an effort to distract them and take them off their game. Your schmoozing (out of game action) has an impact on how well they play their army (in game choices).

That's metagaming. It's really pretty straightforward. It also pretty clearly exists in 40K.

Then there's "the metagame." This is more of a slang term or colloquialism, so it's more subjective in definition than plain old "metagame," but I think it's generally understood to be the first example of metagaming I mentioned above.

One builds one's list based on recent trends in "top" armies. That's "the metagame." I won't speak for or against it, I won't speculate as to its usefulness, but I think it clearly does go on.

I also can't speculate as to GBF's original argument. I think "the metagame" clearly does exist as a concept. It's possible to figure out what lists are popular across the 40K community, and to make decisions based on that.

Is the community too diverse to bother? Maybe.

Is the tactic one that will never put you in the lead, but always in a position to play catch up? Maybe.

But as to the meaning of "metagame" I think that's pretty straightforward.

As to the meaning of "the metagame" I think that's also pretty straightforward.

Last 4 years of GT's I've played 1 marine army (including all flavors except LATD) per.

The breakdown was like this:

4 IG horde.
2 Chaos (khorne for some reason)
2 Smurfs
2 DE
4 Eldar
4 Nids
1 Demonhunter
1 Sisters
3 Tau
2 Inkies
0 Orks (sniffle)

Wow.. what a long shaggy dog thread.

Plain and simple there are trends in list building either because of their ease of play or their ability to beat the other 'commonly' played lists.

To ignore that in the tournament scene is short sighted and ultimately a disadvantage.

Just because your *completely original and omgz non cookie cutter list* does well against some of these does not mean that you didn't subscribe to the meta game. Obviously if it didn't work for you and you didn't expect to compete against or beat the lists you expect to face then you probably wouldn't bring it.

It just happens to work out that lists full of las canons, melta guns, power fists, and plasma guns work against almost everything that people commonly field.