Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently ive became good friends with someone who is...Well, a spike. An outright, wants to go all out meta player. They always want to try to do their best and I cant fault them for it. But this relatively newer player also takes tournament results as gospel. They play Ynnari, and basicay lean 100% into dark reapers.

Their issue comes in to the fact they have yet to actually win with the list. Ive told them time and time again that Ynnari is NOT new player friendly, and just because "everyone says theyre far better" it doesnt mean theyll win. Ive seen more and more players who seem to scream about absolute bests, treating 90% of the games units as the bottom 10%.

Has anyone else experienced similar issues with players? It seems some just cant see past the meta, not realizing that a good list also needs a good player. Its not at all gratifying to have someone talk your ear off about how bad the new Obliterators are, only to beat them with that very unit.

They just need to practice a lot more with it.

Well if a unit doesn't perform in a list, then it doesn't really matter if it is good or bad on its own. As hard to play goes, the hard may come in to effect, when someone is playing their first round against a world class player with a world class list. Against someone in a store or local event, good rules can carry people real far. One does have to warn people that unless they know the judges and other players really well, then achiving a win rate of over 60% is going to be really hard.

zerosignal wrote:
They just need to practice a lot more with it.

Yup. A massive part of 40k is memorizing what each army can do, and how to counter the enemy army and the specific strategy he's going for. That can only be learned though experience, though watching youtube battle reports can help a bit.

This does seem to be a uniquely "era of the internet" problem for 40k. As someone who's seen tons and tons of new players coming through, the phenomenon of the "did internet research but doesn't really understand the game at all" player is a new, and interesting one to me.

if I may have a BACK IN MY DAY moment, when I got started almost every new player made the same classic rookie mistakes, myself included.

You spotted a new player by the fact that they DIDN'T know the things that "everybody knows" - usually this came in the form of units with hilariously mixed wargear, like my own crack team of Space Wolf long fangs armed with heavy bolter, lascannon, plasma cannon, and multi-melta. They're flexible and ready for anything and they can take on all threats and why are you holding that large green circle over my models? Wait I thought I got an armor save?

Now, the easiest way to spot a new player is that they've hardlocked themself into some intensely rigid internet-approved strategy and just dropped 500+$ on it in one go, usually making at least 3-4 major misunderstandings in perspective leading to massive, frustrating losses along the way. Last edition, we had an incredibly eager dude buy almost a grand worth of guardsmen and daemons because he thought guard summoning daemons was the 100% unstoppable strategy that would always always win no matter what.

Just this last week I played against a guy who had ebayed about 60 SS/SB deathwatch veterans and that, a smash captain, a watch master and two librarians, was his list. He wanted to see how Harlequins played because he'd bought the starter box that also included harlequins, and he set up all his stuff super close to the deployment line because "you gotta take advantage of bolter discipline!" He had zero anti-tank units in the entire army, nobody with any other wargear whatsoever, and basically no understanding about how anything was supposed to play but he'd dumped a ridiculous amount of money on getting the things that the internet told him he needed.

In the grand scheme of things, I can't help but feel like the noobstomping of earlier editions was less of a barrier to entry than the false "internet informed" blunders of right now. My goofy 500 points of space wolves is still something I think back on and laugh about, but at least it only cost 13 year old me maybe 50-60 bucks in stuff that was just purely unsalvageable trash.

When I played there my group had someone who would leap headfirst into whatever army they were told was strong. The problem was they had no understanding of the rules at ALL. They were somehow convinced that in 6th Tyranids were way better than their Tau, in 7th they tried scatbike spam but it was one blob of 10 and they moved them up the board and lost them in close combat with me.

It made for extremely bad games. The sheer boredom of a unit that has enough power to point and click delete your army but enough poor skills to make them easy to beat and just a little sad.

Much better was the Tyranid player who got some rules wrong from time to time but had a lovely attitude. A pleasure to play against.

Caveat emptor, innit?

If you dump $1k into plastic just 'cause 1d4chan told you to, that's on you and nobody else.

Ynnari have a very high learning curve from what I understand. Perhaps it would be better if your friend took a more user friendly army in order to learn the basics first?

Sounds like a case of running before you can walk.

If I may also be permitted a "back in my day" moment, I've noticed a distinct lack of self-reflection and ability to critique and understand both lists and playing decisions from a lot of younger/newer players. So much research is done online in an attempt to uncover the best list ever that many players are ill-equipped to examine their own lists and games to figure out how to improve. So even if they find a genuinely powerful list they completely lack the understanding of the game required to play it successfully. The internet also helps foster the myth that a good list is 90%+ of the reason for winning and losing. In my day you didn't have the same online eco-system we have now so you had to be a lot more critical of your own lists and ability if you wanted to get better.

As a practical example, in another game system, there is a local player who has never beaten myself or any of my club mates in a tournament. Every time we play he'll ask if my list is the new "meta list" (often while playing with a list he's clearly "adapted" from something he's found online, often in the worst way imaginable) as if keen to glean the secret knowledge of ultimate victory. After being soundly beaten because he doesn't really understand the nuance of the game, he'll then confidently declare he would win if we were to play the game a second time. This from someone whose win rate in such games is literally 0% after more than a dozen encounters. The lack of self-reflection and critical thinking skills is something that seems common to people of a certain (younger) age range.

I was like that when I first got into the hobby, obsessed with optimizing my list and usurping the top players at my FLGS.

It was pre Gathering Storm 7th Edition, and I was playing Dark Eldar.

I pretty quickly learned that there were other aspects of the hobby to enjoy besides competitive play and winning.

It's true. The rise of the World Wide Web has given us a lot more information to work with, but it is hard to sort the bad advice from the good!

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Caveat emptor, innit?

If you dump $1k into plastic just 'cause 1d4chan told you to, that's on you and nobody else.

1d4chan is one of the singular worst places to get advice from.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Recently ive became good friends with someone who is...Well, a spike. An outright, wants to go all out meta player. They always want to try to do their best and I cant fault them for it. But this relatively newer player also takes tournament results as gospel. They play Ynnari, and basicay lean 100% into dark reapers.

Their issue comes in to the fact they have yet to actually win with the list. Ive told them time and time again that Ynnari is NOT new player friendly, and just because "everyone says theyre far better" it doesnt mean theyll win. Ive seen more and more players who seem to scream about absolute bests, treating 90% of the games units as the bottom 10%.

Has anyone else experienced similar issues with players? It seems some just cant see past the meta, not realizing that a good list also needs a good player. Its not at all gratifying to have someone talk your ear off about how bad the new Obliterators are, only to beat them with that very unit.

Jesus not even with new players do I see this. Not only are certain armies not newbee friendly, but everyone has their own style of playing as is. The people that take the 'trend lists' 'tourney lists' as gospel are so misguided. Those players do well with those lists because they've learned how to win with those lists. People think simply by using a list they can somehow auto-win or have an edge on an opponent. Tournament players aren't sitting around swapping lists with each other.

For example we all have our own bias', like I tend to like getting into CC and even though I'm aware of that, it will still influence me if I'm playing. Same with people who like to dakka, sit on objectives when their units could do something more useful or doing something stupid when they can get a point by sitting on an objective etc.

Going off what the_scotsman said...yeah, it really is becoming detrimental to playing games in a more relaxed environment with these lists being posted up everywhere anytime an event happens.

I get that people might want to get the best bang for their buck, but christ. Play the game first. Most venues and opponents are a bit laid back in casual play when you explain you're wanting to try stuff out.

 Kroem wrote:
It's true. The rise of the World Wide Web has given us a lot more information to work with, but it is hard to sort the bad advice from the good!

That's certainly true, but I think there's a second element a lot of people miss in their quest for game-winning information. You still need to develop your skills on the board. 40k probably has a much lower skill threshold than many games but there are still things you need to master before you can be successful. There's no substitute for experience on the board, especially when you come up against players who have that experience themselves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Caveat emptor, innit?

If you dump $1k into plastic just 'cause 1d4chan told you to, that's on you and nobody else.

1d4chan is one of the singular worst places to get advice from.

Exactly my point.

40k is a skill-based game. I have one friend who thought he knew everything going right into it, because he's good with math and thought he could just math out the "best units". But the game is more than the math. So he had really strong builds, but wasn't winning any games.

40k's skill ladder is tall, and the rungs on that ladder are spaced far apart. It takes a lot of time to learn the nuances.

The game is (roughly):
60% List Building Skill
24% Gamplay Skill
14.4% Luck
1.6% Match-up

When people play with lists that are about the same strength (tourney-level lists), then the next biggest factor is player skill. Assuming he's playing against people also bringing tourney-lists because he's a Spike, then that's your answer as to why he's often losing.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Caveat emptor, innit?

If you dump $1k into plastic just 'cause 1d4chan told you to, that's on you and nobody else.

1d4chan is one of the singular worst places to get advice from.

Exactly my point.

I really like 1d4 chan. I like their unit break downs (just about the only place you can find them) and I like their writing style.

But once you have a bit of a handle on the units you need to design your own army. One that plays how you want to play. Their "strategy" secontion down at the bottem isn't very helpful, I find them either gimicy or they just play in a way I don't want to play.

pm713 wrote:
When I played there my group had someone who would leap headfirst into whatever army they were told was strong. The problem was they had no understanding of the rules at ALL. They were somehow convinced that in 6th Tyranids were way better than their Tau, in 7th they tried scatbike spam but it was one blob of 10 and they moved them up the board and lost them in close combat with me.

It made for extremely bad games. The sheer boredom of a unit that has enough power to point and click delete your army but enough poor skills to make them easy to beat and just a little sad.

Much better was the Tyranid player who got some rules wrong from time to time but had a lovely attitude. A pleasure to play against.

Now that's a mood. There's an AdMech player at my FLGS who plays a mob of Kastellans with Cawl who should be able to blast just about anything he faces off the board with a WoM salvo. Has yet to win a game in...a year or so?.

Counter-point: too many CAAC players stubbornly insist that bad units are viable and persuade newbies to buy them because BEER AND BEEEPRETZELS.

In fairness a bad guitar isn't going to be much worse than a good guitar if you're trying to play it like a piano. Unless your name is Eddie Van Halen.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Recently ive became good friends with someone who is...Well, a spike. An outright, wants to go all out meta player. They always want to try to do their best and I cant fault them for it. But this relatively newer player also takes tournament results as gospel. They play Ynnari, and basicay lean 100% into dark reapers.

Their issue comes in to the fact they have yet to actually win with the list. Ive told them time and time again that Ynnari is NOT new player friendly, and just because "everyone says theyre far better" it doesnt mean theyll win. Ive seen more and more players who seem to scream about absolute bests, treating 90% of the games units as the bottom 10%.

Has anyone else experienced similar issues with players? It seems some just cant see past the meta, not realizing that a good list also needs a good player. Its not at all gratifying to have someone talk your ear off about how bad the new Obliterators are, only to beat them with that very unit.

It happens, people need to learn that just because something is statistically good, doesn't mean it won't do wonders. This weekend I have one Terminator unit tank an entire turn of guard shooting, and only lost 2 of the 10 in the unit.

This is why I'm shying away from tournament play, it's full of a bunch of sewer holes.

It becomes really quite funny when people with this mindset trained by Warhammer decide to come to Warmachine or Infinity and try and find the meta-breaking power units that will carry their army to victory without effort.

The problem is, a lot of people who talk the loudest and with the most confidence are often the people with the most blinkered perspective and aren't very good players themselves. I know how to recognise poor advice and how to consider what has merit. The internet age for gaming in general, has people locked into "meta" builds without even understanding what the term means, and dismissing great stuff for arbitrary reasons the they don't understand, and also not comprehending the impact of actual play choices on games. Dakka is extremely guilty of this.

 Peregrine wrote:
Counter-point: too many CAAC players stubbornly insist that bad units are viable and persuade newbies to buy them because BEER AND BEEEPRETZELS.

i don't know if this happens outside of Peregrine land. I've never witnessed it anywhere but maybe I'm wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:
Counter-point: too many CAAC players stubbornly insist that bad units are viable and persuade newbies to buy them because BEER AND BEEEPRETZELS.

I've never seen anything that even approaches that idea.

Modern gaming seems to have trouble playing smaller point games. Some of that is that games don't seem to scale as well these days with rules that make list building less flexible. Scenarios also rely on larger armies in many situations. The result is players lose a lot of that important small game practice where they learn the flow and pace of the game.

The big advantage of smaller point games is that you can play more of them, which is really important for learning the basics. Simple stuff like turn sequence, target priority and even just the general pace of the game how to get a feel for how aggressive or defensive you need to be. You just need to play a lot to get this down and smaller point games with fewer complications teach this a lot faster than grinding things at a tournament standard.

 LunarSol wrote:
Modern gaming seems to have trouble playing smaller point games. Some of that is that games don't seem to scale as well these days with rules that make list building less flexible. Scenarios also rely on larger armies in many situations. The result is players lose a lot of that important small game practice where they learn the flow and pace of the game.

The big advantage of smaller point games is that you can play more of them, which is really important for learning the basics. Simple stuff like turn sequence, target priority and even just the general pace of the game how to get a feel for how aggressive or defensive you need to be. You just need to play a lot to get this down and smaller point games with fewer complications teach this a lot faster than grinding things at a tournament standard.

You don't know hard to teach until you're tried doing it in a 3v3 game...

pm713 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Modern gaming seems to have trouble playing smaller point games. Some of that is that games don't seem to scale as well these days with rules that make list building less flexible. Scenarios also rely on larger armies in many situations. The result is players lose a lot of that important small game practice where they learn the flow and pace of the game.

The big advantage of smaller point games is that you can play more of them, which is really important for learning the basics. Simple stuff like turn sequence, target priority and even just the general pace of the game how to get a feel for how aggressive or defensive you need to be. You just need to play a lot to get this down and smaller point games with fewer complications teach this a lot faster than grinding things at a tournament standard.

You don't know hard to teach until you're tried doing it in a 3v3 game...

I have very intentionally dropped out of such scenarios and played referee to avoid this.

I've seen a few isolated stories that suggest it has happened once or twice.

Perhaps the best answer is to give well-reasoned, balanced answers to questions.

If someone says: "Should I start GK", perhaps the answer should be along the lines of "GK are in a rough spot right now, and may not get better. If you love the look and feel, though, [more GK details]"?

If your response is "CWE or GTFO", and they're not competitive, you're not helping; maybe they just love the GK asethetic or lore or units.

If your response is "Go for it, buy 2k points of $gkunits", and they're super competitive, you've set them up for a nasty surprise when they finally get it assembled/painted and start learning to play.

The ideal response is a well-reasoned one that takes into account the entire spectrum of the hobby, instead of foaming at the mouth and fixating on one extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Modern gaming seems to have trouble playing smaller point games. Some of that is that games don't seem to scale as well these days with rules that make list building less flexible. Scenarios also rely on larger armies in many situations. The result is players lose a lot of that important small game practice where they learn the flow and pace of the game.

The big advantage of smaller point games is that you can play more of them, which is really important for learning the basics. Simple stuff like turn sequence, target priority and even just the general pace of the game how to get a feel for how aggressive or defensive you need to be. You just need to play a lot to get this down and smaller point games with fewer complications teach this a lot faster than grinding things at a tournament standard.

You don't know hard to teach until you're tried doing it in a 3v3 game...

I've actually had great experience with newer players learning in 2v2 or 3v3 games.

That said, their first game or two should be 1v1 just to teach the basics. But after that, 2v2 or 3v3 (or even FFA) can be a lot of fun, even with newer players.

Bharring wrote:
I've seen a few isolated stories that suggest it has happened once or twice.

Perhaps the best answer is to give well-reasoned, balanced answers to questions.

If someone says: "Should I start GK", perhaps the answer should be along the lines of "GK are in a rough spot right now, and may not get better. If you love the look and feel, though, [more GK details]"?

If your response is "CWE or GTFO", and they're not competitive, you're not helping; maybe they just love the GK asethetic or lore or units.

If your response is "Go for it, buy 2k points of $gkunits", and they're super competitive, you've set them up for a nasty surprise when they finally get it assembled/painted and start learning to play.

The ideal response is a well-reasoned one that takes into account the entire spectrum of the hobby, instead of foaming at the mouth and fixating on one extreme.

True. I've been downvoted on reddit and disagreed with here for suggesting that though. My standard comment if someone is new looking for an army is:

"Take a look at GW's website, and pick the army you like the look of the least. Keep in mind though, that Space Marines of all varieties and Necrons are both in a rough spot, and are much weaker than other armies. If you're in it mostly for paitning and modeling though, don't worry, you can play both in friendly games".

And people sometimes try to call me a WAAC TFG for posting things like that. Feels bad. Just trying to inform a player.