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.

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'd love to see that. Not only will it be meta as feth, making worlds collide and breaking the 4th wall, but I would love to read all the ensuing nerd rage that happens afterwards.

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. 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

Without the data you are guessing.

By my definition of metagame, you should look up the number of MEq armies used at GTs year by year, and see if the proportion has changed. In UK GTs it is usually about 2/3rds of armies that are MEq. THis has been given as a reason why SM armies tend not to do well -- because good players who are reading the metagame, know they need to bring a lot of AT weapons. It does not explain why CSMs consistently do much better than loyalist SMs. The reasons for this can be guessed at; (1) the CSM codex (the old one) is overpowered, (2) a lot of new and unskilled players play SMs.

CSM are fearless.

IMO that is why they do better.

No more, no less.

Polonius wrote: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.

UNFORTUNATELY until "METAGAMING" is clearly defined (and right about now, it hasn't been, at least not in my NSHO) we won't be able to have an absolute discussion/debate. All we have done to this point, is back and forth about what METAGAMING isn't and while that might get us to the clearly defined, it leads us further away in digression faster than it leads us to the definition.

My definition is right.

Stelek wrote:
You do realize I'm dying to meet someone can beat me, because it's been 10 years of 'win 3 today, win 2 tomorrow, watch some dickface win the overall then go see how bad my sportsmanship score is this year for tabling people in under an hour'? I don't think I will, but you never know.

Stelek

You haven't lost a game in 10 years? I call shenanigans on that. Please prove it or go away.

Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? If you do, please e-mail me and I will gladly sell you a genuine "Stelek's Guide to Never Losing" for only $100. I accept paypal only.

Actually, I haven't lost a game in 11 years so that makes me better than Stelek. The stock market is such a bore that i don't participate because it would be too easy to make a fortune. Beating deep blue in chess is also way too easy. I DID program the darn thing.. while looking at my wife... Morgan Fairchild... Who I have seen naked.

Heh. I can do the internet shuffle as well! Whee.. this is fun!

ender502

ender502

At tournaments its been a dry spell. It's hard to prove anything when GW keeps losing my name. I do believe I've been over this and you (thankfully) were spotted in that thread ridiculing me there too.

At least that train's never late!

I don't often lose games at the FLGS but I do lose games.

Stelek, you are immensely useful. Most likely not for the reasons you intend, but to me at least, you are of high utility.

Thanks. Have you considered going on a lecture circuit for universities?

ender502 wrote:

Stelek wrote:
You do realize I'm dying to meet someone can beat me, because it's been 10 years of 'win 3 today, win 2 tomorrow, watch some dickface win the overall then go see how bad my sportsmanship score is this year for tabling people in under an hour'? I don't think I will, but you never know.

Stelek

You haven't lost a game in 10 years? I call shenanigans on that. Please prove it or go away.

Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? If you do, please e-mail me and I will gladly sell you a genuine "Stelek's Guide to Never Losing" for only $100. I accept paypal only.

Actually, I haven't lost a game in 11 years so that makes me better than Stelek. The stock market is such a bore that i don't participate because it would be too easy to make a fortune. Beating deep blue in chess is also way too easy. I DID program the darn thing.. while looking at my wife... Morgan Fairchild... Whom I have seen naked.

Heh. I can do the internet shuffle as well! Whee.. this is fun!

ender502

ender502

Fixed your post.

Wehrkind wrote:Stelek, you are immensely useful. Most likely not for the reasons you intend, but to me at least, you are of high utility.

Thanks. Have you considered going on a lecture circuit for universities?

Yes, but I'm not accredited or a fellow...and being able to beat most gamers at whatever game it is they are playing tends to make them NOT want to listen to me.

This is an excellent example.

This thread has kind of degenerated into a bunch of "BAAWWHH!"-ing at this point. But I have a pretty definite answer to what a meta game is, and it definitely isn't a myth in any game. All anyone really has to do is ask a Magic player, they all know.

A metagame is the enviroment, playstyles, and lists(builds, decks) people bring to the game. Metagaming is when one analyzes the field in which he plays and plays the team/list/deck he feels will defeat the others.

In an ideal world for some people around here, everyone would have these super fluffy lists and no one would ever deviate from them. It would all by Typhus leading Plague Marines. But that is still a metagame. All it really is, is the field you play in. It's why you hear stuff like "My metagame is really MEQ heavy" or "The metagame here has no Eldar". So get back on topic.

Yes, but I'm not accredited or a fellow...and being able to beat most gamers at whatever game it is they are playing tends to make them NOT want to listen to me.

This is an excellent example.

It is not your ability to beat most gamers at whatever game is is they are playing that makes people not eager to listen to you.

It is, simply, your attitude.

At my local FLGS ( when I used to play frequently anyway ) I was one of the top players, and won most of my games. As a result everyone allways sought my opinion and advice on tactics and list building.

At the store I frequent now, one of the top CCG players in the country is a regular. He wins a good 95% (rough estimate I dont keep a spreadsheet on him) of his games and has a number of pro-toruney wins to his credit(too bad we cant win this kind of money in 40k ).

This makes people very willing to listen to him and he is free with his opinions so long as they do not give away the results of his inner groups most recent build for an upcoming tourney.

As to the topic of this thread, I really cant see how anyone can say there is NO METAGAME. Just take a look at every list building thread on every forum in the community, this is clearly metagaming.

I can certainly understand the debate of it's effectivness, (and I agree that the very best players usually trancend this) but that it exists seems fairly obvious.

My attitude is not the one I have in real life.

People do seek me out in that manner at my FLGS. I do not keep secrets, I want everyone to learn.

I wish we could win that kind of money too. lol

The point being that there certainly is a metagame.

40k the game encompasses what happens from when two players walk up to the table and begin to play, until the game ends and they determine a winner.

Everything else is metagame.

Making an army list is not playing the game. It is a process usually very dependent on metagame considerations, like what do I own, what do I feel like buying, what am I willing to paint, what suits my style of play, and what will give me a chance of beating my friend Jim's darn Orks or of beating that darn tri-falcon harlies list that beat me last weekend at the GT. Making a list can arguably be included in the process of an individual game if you build a list for a particular game and opponent, but even then there are metagame considerations. Do I know what this opponent owns? Do I know what he is likely to field of that collection? Do I know that he just painted up a new unit and is eager to field it? Did I just see him post up an army list on our local message forum that he said he's eager to try out? None of these data are gained during the game itself. They are all from outside the game, but inform your planning for the game. This is all metagame.

The only really accurate definitions of metagame are the really broad ones a couple of posters have used. Because it's a really broad term.

Several people have repeatedly brought up the definition of metagame as representing the most common armies or known successful builds within a playing group, region, or particular tournament environment. That's not necessarily wrong, and within the context of formal tournament gaming has a fair amount of utility. Someone earlier posted an excerpt from a discussion of the tournament metagame in M:TG, which is not really similar but is close enough to use similar terminology and to draw parallels. But it's too limiting to be completely accurate.

Other metagame factors exist. In the GW GTs, being aware of the painting, sportsmanship, and composition rules and scoring structure (if any) is useful in order to play the tournament metagame. If you know that scoring well in all categories will maximize your chances of winning the tournament, you can plan strategies and take active steps to improve your scores in those areas. This is playing the tournament metagame.

Another point to bear in mind that what will typically constitute metagaming varies from game to game. In the context of roleplaying games, players use the term to reference the use of player knowledge to inform character decisions. This often has a strong negative connotation. If we are playing a game where our characters are new adventurers unaware of the occult secrets of the world, and when we encounter a particular monster I have my character immediately attack its weak spot or employ a non-intuitive tactic that will most efficiently defeat it based on my out-of-character knowledge, it will be looked on as poor form.

Whereas planning for and playing to the metagame in a tournament gaming format is generally accepted and recognized as a prudent step towards victory. Even there some forms may or may not be accepted. At a M:TG tournament I played in once I finished the semi-final round early and walked over to check out tje other game still in progress. One of the players objected to me observing, as he did not want me to "scout" his deck and know what he had.

All this is really just talking about what a metagame is.

As already noted, the more useful question really is, how useful is it to plan for the metagame? Is it really as big a deal as all the planning and discussion online before tournaments makes it seem? Or is all that really just a fun pastime that doesn't actually have a major impact on winning the games, but misleads players into thinking it's a bigger deal than it really is?

AS for definition of metagaming, this is what I originally assumed everyone was talking about.

I quote from wikipedia's metagaming list.

"A recent slang definition of Metagaming, popular among computer and video game fans, is any tactic in a computer or video game that uses one or more features of that game that lie outside the intended gameplay use, or exploit errors in programming structures. For example, a player who took advantage of a bug in the game to gain some advantage would be metagaming. An example would be deliberately getting one's character killed in order to return to the last saved game."

So, from that definition, of exploiting loopholes, or taking advantage of poorly written rules to win, etc., I would say that yes, there is metagaming, most of us would call it powergaming or building your list to best exploit your opponents.

Mannahnin wrote:The point being that there certainly is a metagame.

...
...
...

As already noted, the more useful question really is, how useful is it to plan for the metagame? Is it really as big a deal as all the planning and discussion online before tournaments makes it seem? Or is all that really just a fun pastime that doesn't actually have a major impact on winning the games, but misleads players into thinking it's a bigger deal than it really is?

Players who are good at tactics are probably good at the metagame as well. Whereas anyone can download a "winning list", but in itself that won't make them a good tactician.

To plan properly you need (A) good data, (B) correct interpretation and (C) realistic capabilities. Take my SM/CSM example from earlier. There is no doubt that CSMs have consistently placed higher than expected in UK GTs for several years (under the old Codex.) This means anyone expecting to reach the higher rankings needs to be ready to fight a CSM army.

Why do CSM armies punch above their statistical weight? Stelek says it is because of Fearlessness. If that is true, what can your army do about Fearlessness? If there is nothing you can do, the metagame analysis is of no help. If there is something, then preparing that countermeasure may just give your army an edge. It would be hard to put a percentage on it.

What we need is for a regular, successful tournament player such as Torgoch to give us his opinion.

Two_heads_talking: From that perspective Siren (from the old Chaos dex) was a known bug or error in the system, which most of the environments I played in patched by banning it, or minor psychic powers in general. That's yet another metagame factor.

Kilkrazy: I largely agree, but not all players who are good at tactics are good at the metagame. Or are willing to participate in all its phases. As Stelek appears to have demonstrated.

After checking out the Game Theory thread in the Tactics forum, I can understand what Stelek's talking about better. But IMO he's talking both about metagame factors and about stuff that's really just high-level strategy.

Having a lot of practice and understanding how my army and my opponent's army work is simply skill at the game itself. Having an expectation that my opponent will not know the best counter to my army list because it is an unusual build which he has probably not seen before, and knowing how inexperienced opponents generally react to it, is metagame knowledge.

Stelek wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Stelek, you are immensely useful. Most likely not for the reasons you intend, but to me at least, you are of high utility.

Thanks. Have you considered going on a lecture circuit for universities?

Yes, but I'm not accredited or a fellow...and being able to beat most gamers at whatever game it is they are playing tends to make them NOT want to listen to me.

This is an excellent example.

You don't have to be either to speak on topics. They have some remarkably unqualified speak, often for a fairly large chunk of cash. Someone who can successfully game any system with a fair degree of certainty definitely has some insights many in academia would love to hear about. Analytical technique is a strong area of interest in many colleges and universities, if for no other reason than many people do not develope such skills going through the education system anymore.

Maybe you and Nurglitch need a talk show?

Remember when Stelek was on vacation? Good times, good times...

OT: I do believe there is a meta-game but I've given up on it. Last RTT I went to I faced nothing but MEQ, the one before that was zero MEQ. I just make an army I know will be effective against most opponents and just run with it.

Hey maybe that's my meta-game...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

two_heads_talking wrote:

Polonius wrote: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.

UNFORTUNATELY until "METAGAMING" is clearly defined (and right about now, it hasn't been, at least not in my NSHO) we won't be able to have an absolute discussion/debate. All we have done to this point, is back and forth about what METAGAMING isn't and while that might get us to the clearly defined, it leads us further away in digression faster than it leads us to the definition.

Exalt.

So far there have been at least 27 different versions of a definition for the term meta game posted in this thread. That tells me you are all for the most part disagreeing with each other since there is not one clear and concise definition that everyone is rallying to. I know that the term meta game sounds really cool and deep and quite intellectual! Really I do. I understand the need for sophistication as well! I mean all this most sincerely too.



G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I know that the term meta game sounds really cool and deep and quite intellectual! Really I do.

G

Wait, it does? I just see it as the gaming equivalent of "this page intentionally left blank", "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", or "why this matter behaves in the way it does".

Well, just because people have multiple different definitions of "metagame" doesn't make any of their definitions incorrect, nor does it mean that what they define as the metagame doesn't exist.

it seems quite obvious that there is *some kind* of metagame, if all you take metagame to mean is something like the simplest definition from wikipedia:

"using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game decisions"

I'd amend that to say "using out-of-game information to affect one's in-game or pre-game decisions". This lets us include army design in the metagame.

What would using out-of-game information entail? Well, first you'd need to define what was "in-game". For 40k tournaments, you'd have to include:

All of the normal game-rules
All of the tournament scoring rules (painting, sportsmanship, generalship, etc)
The missions (if known ahead of time)

These are all known game rules and therefore not metagame.

The metagame then comes from knowing (or thinking you know) stuff outside these rules and trying to apply that knowledge to improve your chances of winning in-game.

The most common piece of out-of-game information looked at and assumed to exist here on dakka seems to be "common army compositions" or maybe "common army compositions and the strategies used with those armies". The theory being that you have to design your army to be effective against the most common armies and the most common tactics. You're taking out-of-game information (how people play, what they play) and trying to apply it, pro-actively, to your game (since army design is pre-game, but technically part of the game rules).

Now, the question is whether or not doing this is in any way useful, not whether or not it can be done. You could try to compile a list of everyone's army that is going to be at a tournament, for example. Say you can do this with 75% accuracy. Now, either this information is useful, and there is something you can do (change tactics, your army, or your practice methods, for example) to increase your odds of winning against those 75%, while not lowering your chances against the 25% unknown. If you could do this, you'd be stupid not to, as all it would do is give you an advantage.

The problem, as I believe GBF is trying to point out, is that actually gathering that information, much less applying it, is futile in the world of 40k. Some reasons for this might be:

There are too many army variations

There are too many tactical variations even with similar armies

There are always new things being developed or thought of that, if played, will automatically invalidate your metagaming

There are too few games played by each player in each tournament to make it worth doing any metagaming that could potentially HURT you against some armies even if it helps you in others

The metagame varies too much between regions, or changes too often, to be reliable in any way before a tournament

I don't know if I agree with all or even any of these points, but they may be correct.

To me, the key point is the idea that information outside the game obviously does exist. So metagaming in that sense is more than possible. Would it be actually useful? That is an entirely different question. So I think it's unfair to say "meta game = myth" but it could be fair to say "metagaming in 40k for tournaments = mostly useless"

I go along with the meta game existing on different levels, ie local regional and national.

The main reason why I am against the concept of a meta game is that I believe it is possible to design a good army list without considering what you will most likely be facing when you game. I have always thought that an army should have the three following components to do well against any other army:

Shooting (both anti-tank and anti-troop)
Personally I feel this is the most important attribute an army can have. There are times when it is very hard to get into an assault and you may pay dearly to do so. To me shooting is akin to defense while assaulting is akin to offense. First your offense may not always be able to perform well but your defense should always be there. Second a good defense creates offense.

Mobility
Your whole army does not have to be able to move fast but a good portion of it should be able to do so. Good mobility if nothing else can unhinge other armies that heavily rely upon it, such as eldar and dark eldar.

Assault
Typically I prefer to use my assault units as a counter to my opponents' assault forces... however I have played my share of armies that were built to assault.

If you can combine all three of these elements into one army it can be devastating. My 13th Company that I used to play has an equal mix of shooting, fast movement/mobility and assault. Except for the Wulfen and Long Fangs all the other units had all three attributes. So I designed the army along these three basic tenants and combine them into each unit as much as possible rather than attempt to build a list that would perform well against the most commonly fielded so called top tier armies. The army was then tweaked slowly over the period of six months based solely upon game play. To me this is not meta gaming and the army performed well against all opponents I faced. I did lose with the army from time to time but that was fairly rare. I'm not tooting my own horn but rather using this particular list to exemplify what I have been saying all along. It was an army that was very different from any other 13th Company I have seen and a lot of other 13th Company veterans told me that my list could not cut it in a competitive environment... but it did. The list for 13th Company was unique in itself. I could go into more detail but I would rather not bore anyone more than I have already done so.



G

GBF:

I think you analysis is good. I agree that it is perfectly possible, even perhaps reasonably easy, to create a competitive, take all comers list knowing only the rules, codexes, etc, and having experience playing the game.

I would just say that (as you admitted elsewhere) sometimes what everyone else is doing does inform your decisions - and that is metagaming. If you know 50% of the armies are going to be eldar, and 80% of those will have eldrad...well maybe it's time to put in that LD10 psychic hood that normally you'd go either way on. Anti-psychic tools are the best example in 40k of something you pay for that will not be useful against every army. The more armies you expect to see where it will be useful, the more likely you are to stick it in your army. And that is metagaming.

I personally think most players are unable to metagame, and only an elite few who are well funded or have a lot of time or are very dedicated to all aspects of the hobby (or all three) can really afford to seriously metagame. I chose my main army (Tau) because I liked the fluff and the models and thought (wrongly) that they'd be easier to paint than a more organic army. While I have changed my army composition a lot through playtesting I don't really have the option to do a whole lot of changes for the metagame - I'm not buying a lot more models and I probably wouldn't get around to painting them anyway.

This may not matter at something like a GT though. You would metagame only to compete with the best players, the players you expect to see in games 3-5, for example. Just because my friend might show up with his beautifully painted Khorne army, and you've never even played one before, doesn't necessarily matter. He's not good, and his army is also not good. Strange outliers to the metagame don't matter. Cookie cutter armies in the hands of poor or average players also likely don't matter.

This just reduces the pool for the metagame. but if I knew what, say, Blackmoor, Centurion99, Stelek, Inquisitor_Malice or whoever I thought might have a chance was going to play, and I had a way to give myself a better chance to a) beat them and b) get better comp scores from them without compromising too much my chances of getting to the top tables on game two...I might as well do it.

Heck, the metagame could be just your personality. Say I'm playing Darrian13 or Blackmoor in a game and I want to make sure I get high sportsmanship marks. I've met them both (Blackmoor only in passing, Darrian I've played with) but I don't pretend to know them well. Maybe I play quickly and well in game, and also make conversation about hey yeah I'm on DakkaDakka too, and yeah man I hate Stelek too, what a know it all jerk he is! Maybe this will ingratiate them to me and get me a better score. Maybe not. But it's still just applying knowledge outside the game world to the game. Metagaming. If I was playing Stelek, I guess I'd do the opposite - "man your posts are so insightful..." or maybe "hey, I play, I don't talk, lets have a good game". I don't know what would actually work, these are more joke examples than anything but you get the point.

I will say I'm sure Inquisitor_Malice used this technique on me at the LA GD last year. I shoulda gave him a 0 for sportsmanship just for playing a bike lord and prince, but he ingratiated himself with me by talking about dakka and being from Ohio.

So were you joking when you said you'd give someone a 0 in sportsmanship for their army comp? :(

Stelek... That's not ridiculing you... that's parody.

If you plan a list with MEQ in mind and get tar pitted with IG or the now awesome orks how good are your AP3 weapons? None. But knowing the lists you are likely to face will factor into your list design. Even if "likely to face" means everything and the kitchen sink.

This is all meta game. Of course, the metagame for something with such a high entry cost (or seemingly high to me) is going to vary from area to area and store to store. It's all well and good to talk about how great orks are but it doesn't mean squat if you aint got the cabbage.

So, i can easily see Greeny kicking butt against "competitive" lists (which his list was meant to fight) and getting kicked by less competitive lists that it can't answer as well. It's not that there is NO metagame, it is just that the meta game is different. It always seemed as if there were more of a real metagame when it came to CCG's. Then again, there is real $ involved with winning.

ender502

@Stelek:

Yes, I was joking. Though I only played in one event last year, and it was my first, it was painfully obvious that the comp system was broken. So much room to munchkin, and then so many people who just threw up their hands and gave everyone a 10. But this has been discussed elsewhere. Plus his bike lord only lived because it was lucky, and his bike prince likely only lived because I am an idiot.

That does make me think of something metagame related - playing "weird" armies may be a metagame tactic as well. If you play something people never see, and they're playing something you do see, even if your army is (slightly) inferior you may be able to gain an advantage due to their unfamiliarity. I don't really think this would work in 40k - I think the game is pretty straightforward and simple and even if your army is really outside-the-box the rules limit you enough that a good player should be able to understand your army even if they haven't seen it, so long as they know what the units do, unless you're exploiting a very non-obvious synergy.

ender502 wrote:Heh. I can do the internet shuffle as well! Whee.. this is fun!

You forgot to mention how you're also a ninja, a navy seal, can bench-press 500 pounds and... always wonder what the 3rd turn would be like, as you've always beaten your opponents before you ever get there. Oh! And that the last game you didn't win was because you collapsed from dehydration during the first turn - but you still drew!

Anyone thing that Stelek might be the advanced form of TFG?

BYE