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.

Anytime anyone says " Warhammer 40,000 Meta " or " Warhammer 40k Competitive" , I just have the visceral reaction to to punch them in the throat.Like what does that even mean the "Meta", cause I play with a group of about 12 to 15 people who I all know personally and are not dickheads and I don't think other than us specifically saying " We're going to build a netlist" have I seen a netlist.

Wait do all of your games consist of you and your buddy smashing lists together like Tonka trucks and it's the same list that you build after one guy wins one tournament in some gakhole state that in order to get people to visit they needed to legalize as many forms of gambling possible with state supported all you can eat 10.99 buffets, and legal prostitution?

The "meta", you mean the 2 dozen at most tournaments in the US that happened each year where like less than a 1000 people participate. Most of them who have been participating in that same tournament and playing against the same people for the last 5 years. That Meta???

Cause that doesn't exist, that's a creative fiction this idea that there's a competitive Warhammer 40k. what you mean you played a game with a unbalancing element that defeated another army? That's not really competitive that's playing golf but you get to start on the green, meanwhile your opponent get's bused 4 miles outside of town and starts there.

This idea that first , there's a Tournament scene, is insane. Yes, if you wanted to be a tournament playing 40k player you can. All you need to do is spend several thousand dollars a year on air fare, hotel accommodations, and the actual models themselves. It's not even a issue of winning, it's a issue of who's luck is better and made the least mistakes. It's not saying their lesser players of 40k, that's not the case. No, their really good players, they know not to make mistakes, they know odds.

That's not competitiveness though, that's being a good player. Those skills are what make you a good player, the game itself is competitive. That's like declaring yourself the worlds greatest competitive Monopoly player. The idea that there is a "casual" and a "competitive" 40k is the problem. These two things don't exist, people saying a Tournament enviroment and a casual setting. What's casual for you and what's a tournament setting for you? Cause you can have a strong and competitive casual game. Every game can be strong and competitive. These games don't just exist at Tournaments.

This gestalt thinking that first, there's a "meta" , and second that it matters is what ruins the game more than anything. People get upset at rules and at rule changes that ruin the "competitiveness" of the game when the game really wasn't ever balanced to begin with is the problem.

I agree with most of what you just said, mate.

I dont even care about tournaments outside of my local gaming store. its about playing with friends, not a bunch of -bleep-

So what I take from your little rant is that you think people who get upset at rule changes are the problem, and that upsets you so much you want to hit them. Oh, and you don't like Nevada.

Someone is upset they lost to a good player.
There very is much a meta, whether you choose to follow it is your peragative. Some of us like challenge in our games

Hollismason wrote:
Anytime anyone says " Warhammer 40,000 Meta " or " Warhammer 40k Competitive" , I just have the visceral reaction to to punch them in the throat.Like what does that even mean the "Meta",

It's shorthand for "metagame", which describes the competitive paradigm currently dominating. What's strong, what's popular, what counters what, etc.

Most games have something like this. It's not even limited to tabletop games. You'll see it in videogames quite frequently. When I played WoW (like 8 or 9 years ago), there'd be a shift every time a major patch would come out, raiding guilds would dump certain classes and take on more of others depending on what changed with the patch. I'm sure it still happens to some extent. Magic the Gathering is built around "the Meta" and changing it every few months.

cause I play with a group of about 12 to 15 people who I all know personally and are not dickheads and I don't think other than us specifically saying " We're going to build a netlist" have I seen a netlist.

Which is great for you, not everyone has such a luxury or plays in circles where people are relatively self-restrained.

Wait do all of your games consist of you and your buddy smashing lists together like Tonka trucks and it's the same list that you build after one guy wins one tournament in some gakhole state that in order to get people to visit they needed to legalize as many forms of gambling possible with state supported all you can eat 10.99 buffets, and legal prostitution?

So...methinks you have some additional issues here...

The "meta", you mean the 2 dozen at most tournaments in the US that happened each year where like less than a 1000 people participate. Most of them who have been participating in that same tournament and playing against the same people for the last 5 years. That Meta???

These things aren't isolated to the large events. They're most apparent there, but if you think such things don't appear at smaller clubs or areas where players frequent a number of venues, you're deluding yourself.

Cause that doesn't exist, that's a creative fiction this idea that there's a competitive Warhammer 40k. what you mean you played a game with a unbalancing element that defeated another army? That's not really competitive that's playing golf but you get to start on the green, meanwhile your opponent get's bused 4 miles outside of town and starts there.

And you're right, but that doesn't mean that you won't encounter these things. Even sticking to a relatively local scene just going to half a dozen local events a year around your metro area you'll see these things quite often. Even in otherwise extremely lax groups, you'll see the greater meta bear out over time. That guy with the fluffy Eldar Aspect strike force with large numbers of Wave Serpents, while not being unfluffy at all, is almost certainly going to routinely trounce the IG player trying to run a fluffy Catachan army with lots of Camo-cloak vets, sniper rifles, demolition charges, and some Ogyrns and Sentinels. That's simply the reality of the Metagame.

This idea that first , there's a Tournament scene, is insane. Yes, if you wanted to be a tournament playing 40k player you can. All you need to do is spend several thousand dollars a year on air fare, hotel accommodations, and the actual models themselves. It's not even a issue of winning, it's a issue of who's luck is better and made the least mistakes. It's not saying their lesser players of 40k, that's not the case. No, their really good players, they know not to make mistakes, they know odds.

That's not competitiveness though, that's being a good player. Those skills are what make you a good player, the game itself is competitive. That's like declaring yourself the worlds greatest competitive Monopoly player. The idea that there is a "casual" and a "competitive" 40k is the problem. These two things don't exist, people saying a Tournament enviroment and a casual setting. What's casual for you and what's a tournament setting for you? Cause you can have a strong and competitive casual game. Every game can be strong and competitive. These games don't just exist at Tournaments.

This gestalt thinking that first, there's a "meta" , and second that it matters is what ruins the game more than anything. People get upset at rules and at rule changes that ruin the "competitiveness" of the game when the game really wasn't ever balanced to begin with is the problem.

If you don't think there's a "meta", you're deluding yourself. Some Codex books are stronger than others, some units are more useful than others. It's absurd to argue that these aren't true. As long as they hold true, a "meta" will exist.

Saying "there is no meta" implies a lack of understanding of what "meta" actually means. It's not like a fake word, lol. Meta has a definition, and to deny is existence is like denying gravity or something.

Meta basically means "the overall state of the game". That's the beginning and end of it. Every multiplayer game has a meta. You play with a small group of friends? That doesn't mean the meta doesn't exist- it means that your group has its own meta.

I love how you work yourself into a rage over losing games of toy soldiers, other people enjoying their toy soldiers differently, words in your own native language you don't understand, and still desperately try to hold on to the notion that you're the sane one.

Good luck, turbo.

7/10

You obviously provoked a good response with this, but I have to question your choice of target a bit. This forum isn't the most competitive community you could find, so I think you'd get better results by posting your rant somewhere else.

Ah, time to pull out that classic Princess Bride quote: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means". As long as people are aware of the state of the game as a whole rather than only individual parts (Ex. They only know their own Codex and that's it) then there is a meta. And that people know 40k holistically isn't a bad thing. It is also very much real and it is an inevitable conclusion of players who are aware of what other factions and units can do relative to their own. Humans have this tendency to analyze patterns and trends which leads to ideas about what works and what doesn't. In fact, I would say that your thinking throughout your post is acutely influenced by the meta even as you call it something that doesn't exist OP.

One way to fix it is to GW finally reognizes the playerbase would like a balanced and fair game, thus giving us better rules and quickly answering questions by FAQs and an organized customer support system.

But that requires a big shift in the high echelon, so... you'll need to live with the 'meta' business.

 Vector Strike wrote:
One way to fix it is to GW finally reognizes the playerbase would like a balanced and fair game, thus giving us better rules and quickly answering questions by FAQs and an organized customer support system.

But that requires a big shift in the high echelon, so... you'll need to live with the 'meta' business.

There will always be a meta though. PP is reasonably well balanced, and that definitely has a Meta.

The PP meta is more rock/paper/scissors. If you use the wrong matchup you loose which isn't very balanced.

40k has a meta, it's not intentional, just a byproduct of GW selling miniatures.

Competitive 40K exists, the tournaments are the proof. It doesn't matter who attends these, as long as some people do and since these tournaments are held year after year, there has to a competitive scene that keeps them alive.

As others have pointed out, the metagame is different everywhere. When you read about 'the meta' on the internet, chances are you're reading about the US comp scene's meta, which focuses on a handful of races, insanely point-efficient combos that can be classified as deathstars and multiple small units. This is what people generally field in US tournaments because it works. It wins games.

Your local metagame could very well be different though. A lot depends on the players, the boards you're using and the amount of terrain you have. In my experience, the younger the local playerbase, the more similar the meta will be to that of the US tournament scene. Netlisting is common amongst younger folks who really want to win. Of course, this isn't always true - I've met quite a few teenagers who make their own 'gimmick' lists that focus on a couple of things their faction can bring.

Casual and comp 40K exist and they are very different things. They are the same game, played by different people. The casual players don't really care whether a unit is efficient or not: if it looks cool, they'll use it. If it makes sense in the fluff they read/wrote for their army, they'll use it. I consider myself a casual player and for me a game of 40K is about the experience. I will play to win, because it is a wargame after all, but if I lose, I won't be angry. I got to roll dice and make stories and imagine movie-like scenes as the armies clashed on the tabletop. That's plenty good for me.

A competitive player plays to win in every way. They enjoy the experience, but for them a game of 40K is more than that - it's a way to test their wits, to see who the better general is. Like any good general, they will outfit their troops with the best possible gear and use them as efficiently as possible.

They're different mindsets, that's all.

To make reading the replies more bearable, behold:

The 40K Discussion Drinking Game

Every time someone says...

Misconception: Drink 1 finger of ale
Concept: Drink 2 fingers of ale
TFG: Drink 2 fingers of ale and stroke your beard
Meta: Drink 3 fingers of ale
Competitive: Drink 4 fingers of ale
Paradigm: Drink 5 fingers of ale
Metaparadigm: Drink 5 shots and shoot yourself


For what it's worth OP, I share your irritation with people using the same phrases to sound educated and superior on what is essentially toy soldiers

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The PP meta is more rock/paper/scissors. If you use the wrong matchup you loose which isn't very balanced.

40k has a meta, it's not intentional, just a byproduct of GW selling miniatures.

Yeah but, every game is going to have a meta. Unless it's perfectly balanced I imagine you'll always get some kind of meta.

And that's not what PP is like at all.

any game where 2 or more players are trying to win is, by definition, a competitive game.

All Gaming groups, large and small have a meta, which is usually determined by the collections of the players, and their prefered playstyle. this may or may not bear any resemblence to the meta of other groups of the tournament scene.

If your group, for example, plays with armies that are heavily infantry based, with few or no vehicles or ant tank weapons. and a new player decides to bring lots of vehicles. he will break your meta, especially if he also has lots of anti infantry guns because he can hurt you, and you can't hurt him.

To deal with that, players in your group can either tell him not to come again (from your post, seems likely) or they can change their own army to deal with the issue by taking more anti tank weapons, maybe changing how much terrain there is. taking faster troops to get melta guns closer and so forth. Congratulations, you are all now meta gaming by using information from outside the game to influence the game itself. your meta will now have shifted.

Also if Dave likes terminators, and always bring lots of them, and you take lots of plasma, you are meta gaming.

so, any time you decide to play someone (and try to win), punch yourself in the throat, and any time you change an army even slightly because you want to make it better, punch yourself in the throat, because you will be playing competitively, and you will be Meta Gaming. have fun!

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The PP meta is more rock/paper/scissors. If you use the wrong matchup you loose which isn't very balanced.

No its not, please stop talking about things that you obviously know nothing about.

Also, "meta" just means what everyone is playing with and against, even in a small tight knit group of friends that meticulously decides on every single unit and option that everyone is allowed to play, so that they can craft the most balanced play experience possible: that is also still their "meta".

Hollismason wrote:
Anytime anyone says " Warhammer 40,000 Meta " or " Warhammer 40k Competitive" , I just have the visceral reaction to to punch them in the throat.Like what does that even mean the "Meta", cause I play with a group of about 12 to 15 people who I all know personally and are not dickheads and I don't think other than us specifically saying " We're going to build a netlist" have I seen a netlist.

Wait do all of your games consist of you and your buddy smashing lists together like Tonka trucks and it's the same list that you build after one guy wins one tournament in some gakhole state that in order to get people to visit they needed to legalize as many forms of gambling possible with state supported all you can eat 10.99 buffets, and legal prostitution?

The "meta", you mean the 2 dozen at most tournaments in the US that happened each year where like less than a 1000 people participate. Most of them who have been participating in that same tournament and playing against the same people for the last 5 years. That Meta???

Cause that doesn't exist, that's a creative fiction this idea that there's a competitive Warhammer 40k. what you mean you played a game with a unbalancing element that defeated another army? That's not really competitive that's playing golf but you get to start on the green, meanwhile your opponent get's bused 4 miles outside of town and starts there.

This idea that first , there's a Tournament scene, is insane. Yes, if you wanted to be a tournament playing 40k player you can. All you need to do is spend several thousand dollars a year on air fare, hotel accommodations, and the actual models themselves. It's not even a issue of winning, it's a issue of who's luck is better and made the least mistakes. It's not saying their lesser players of 40k, that's not the case. No, their really good players, they know not to make mistakes, they know odds.

That's not competitiveness though, that's being a good player. Those skills are what make you a good player, the game itself is competitive. That's like declaring yourself the worlds greatest competitive Monopoly player. The idea that there is a "casual" and a "competitive" 40k is the problem. These two things don't exist, people saying a Tournament enviroment and a casual setting. What's casual for you and what's a tournament setting for you? Cause you can have a strong and competitive casual game. Every game can be strong and competitive. These games don't just exist at Tournaments.

This gestalt thinking that first, there's a "meta" , and second that it matters is what ruins the game more than anything. People get upset at rules and at rule changes that ruin the "competitiveness" of the game when the game really wasn't ever balanced to begin with is the problem.

As others have said before meta is essentially a term to the describe how the game plays out and what choices people make. The meta is formed by you and people you play with, thus your local meta. You best start believing in Metas Mr. Mason, you're in one.

Second, of course there's going to be competitive 40k. It's a game where two people have armies of plastic figures fight over objectives with a clear win condition. That means it's competitive. Now by competitive I assume you mean "high level competitive play" like most people do nowadays, of course those people are competitive. You're "there are no competitive players" thing kind of falls apart when I can jump over to Tournament Discussions board and ask "Hey are there competitive players here" and most likely get a response of "Well, yeah... duh".

Also it's not so much that there is a "casual" and a "competitive" 40k, there are actually MANY 40ks. All groups aren't going to see things the same, they'll take rules differently or invent house rules for things they don't like. People on the internet tend to use RAW or Tournament rules as reference because they're something accessible to all. Even PUG players (aka the ones that get it worst from degrading balance) will have a form of 40k based around the store manager or other well-known customers interpretations of the rules.

You're right. There is no Meta. Not offically.

In the tournament scene, people can take, typically, whatever they want. So there is no meta.

I've seen this same argument from people who don't like the Smogon Tier system for Pokemon.

Offical rules for pokemon (nindento rules) state that there are several pokemon who can't be used. All of these are legendaries. Not all legendaries are banned under this rule, but most are.

Smogon has a Tier system where pokemon who are commonly over used than others (because they are more powerful) are restricted to certain groups (under used, over used, uber).

As some people have said already, there are certain codexes which are used more than others. The new necrons are the best example of that. Early battle reports are showing that people can't make a dent in their armor, invulnerable and advanced FnP (reanimation protocl) rules.

Now it will likely take time for people to find a way to deal with Necrons but there are other armies which I imagine just won't be able to.

It will take time. And this is the difference between the "competitive" scene and the casual scene. Casual groups will have 12 or so players, as you mentioned. Larger groups will play more often and can test out different lists on a more frequent basis (this is the same situaiton with casual vs. online pokemon players).

Perhaps players will find a way to deal with Necrons, but saying that Necrons are on the same power level as something like Sisters of Battle, Orks or Space Wolves is completely stupid.

IF you were to class which armies are the most powerful vs which are the weakest, that might be the beginning of a metagame.

I would put Eldar, Tau and Necrons at the top. Not sure what else.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone is upset they lost to a good player.

I understood it more as "I should be allowed to crush everyone with my power list because I do not acknowledge the casual vs competitive distinction."

I suppose we can all read different motivations for the OP's rant, cathartic all the same: at least he cares.

I like competitive games where when facing someone who knows the in's and out's of the rules and has good experience you would rarely win as a newbie and possibly be crushed.
This is because strategy can be applied with some measure of success due to choices.

The extreme amount of randomization used in the game throws most strategies out the window because you can only allow for so many contingencies. I still see relatively new players beat the more experienced players: this is how chance works. This is why you keep seeing "lists" mentioned because this is one of the few areas where you have true choice that is not determined by chance.

The anger / frustration is the mislabel of 40k being "competitive" and new players winning against experienced ones: it infers they out-played / out-strategized someone when typically it was largely determined by the roll of the dice.

You won not because you were "better" but because chance was good at this time.
Hence, the laid-back fluff-bunny "it-is-all-good-mon" tends to be the way to go, if you commit your ego to the win it is a bit of a fool's game.

Meta doesn't really apply to 40k because of how the game is done. It usually refers to a specific group as in "My meta plays competitively" or "My meta only plays narrative games". It's usually used to state the general mindset of a particular group of players as they approach the game.

You see it much more frequently in a game like Warmachine that's built to be more competitive where what happens in the major tournaments trickles down to regional and then local groups (e.g. some well known player will take a subpar list and place high in a tournament, and then everyone starts analyzing his list to see if taking that unit is worthwhile for everybody). You don't see that quite as much in 40k because there tends to not be a lot of variety in the major tournaments, it's spamming good units and ignoring bad ones.

I'd say you’re upset about game balance not 'meta' or 'competitive' play. While no game like this could ever truly be 100% balanced. GW could make a better effort with rules and make it much closer. I presonally would love for the game to have at least enough balance in the rules and codices, so that no matter what codex someone plays they would have a chance to win against any other codex. They don't need to have a easy button unit, just enough balance that tactics and dice are where success and faliures come from.


Not, because I took Codex/dataslate A or B maximized my easy button units, its auto win against codex/dataslate V, W, X, Y, & Z who either have no easy button units or just have nothing to compete against tose list with. Anyone convincing themselves that the current ruleset doesn't allow for this is kidding themselves.

Says he doesn't believe in metas. Goes on to describe his meta in detail. Seems legit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The PP meta is more rock/paper/scissors. If you use the wrong matchup you loose which isn't very balanced.

40k has a meta, it's not intentional, just a byproduct of GW selling miniatures.

you don't actually know what you're tatalking about, do you?

 ImAGeek wrote:
PP is reasonably well balanced, and that definitely has a Meta.

LOL, Privateer Press "well balanced"?

That is hilarious!

I said reasonably. It's vastly better balanced than 40k.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I'd say you’re upset about game balance not 'meta' or 'competitive' play. While no game like this could ever truly be 100% balanced.

If you take the exact same armies it would be balanced. <edit> I would be content with 80% balance.
The problem is what your points can buy from list to list.
When you find "deals" for those points without sufficient drawbacks.
Comparing army lists and what you can get for the same points I hate to say is a joke with 40k.
That is the simplest thing that can be pointed out.

Many games have formulas and systems for making custom units in an attempt to be fair in a game (Battletech, Full-Thrust) a token attempt at that for GW's design studio would be a nice start.

To the OP, there is a "meta" or "consideration of it's properties" which is a game where d6 randomization with modifiers is the core mechanic.
The means to ensure you use modifiers to reduce the amount of randomization influence by the d6 is the main focus so that planned strategies can happen rather than be undone by chance.
"Competitive" in a true dictionary sense is a desire to be more "successful" in the game and like it or not, that is doable in 40k.

marful wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
PP is reasonably well balanced, and that definitely has a Meta.

LOL, Privateer Press "well balanced"?

That is hilarious!

Dude. Trencher Spam. nuff said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and DelivererStar.

This reads as "I take 3 Knights and people call me TFG. Why can't I stomp my friends I'm casual games?"

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The PP meta is more rock/paper/scissors. If you use the wrong matchup you loose which isn't very balanced.

40k has a meta, it's not intentional, just a byproduct of GW selling miniatures.

Yeah but, every game is going to have a meta. Unless it's perfectly balanced I imagine you'll always get some kind of meta.

And that's not what PP is like at all.

Even perfectly balanced games have a meta. Chess has a meta, checkers has a meta.