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.

Hi Guys!

I know that there is a massive tournament scene across the pond, so I would greatly appreciate and value your input and thoughts on this post. I'll start with a bit of background.

I'm a gamer from Glasgow in the United Kingdom(Scotland). Glasgow is a pretty big city in terms of 40k players. The community is large, and has a wide selection of players that ranges from "I don't care about games, I just love to paint", all the way up to "3 colour maximum, must smash all before me!". This discussion is going to focus more on the competitive side of things.

I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with the ETC (European Team Championships) - though I know that America and Canada also attend this event, but the majority of the Team Scotland players are based in or around the Glasgow area (with 1 or 2 exceptions). We have local forums and facebook groups where we often engage in army list discussion. I say army list discussion, as most discussions tend to be about a specific list, rather than it's utilisation. Having read the results from a recent GT here in the United Kingdom, I was far from surprised to read that the top 10 players were all either Tau/Eldar, or Eldar/Tau. This is the core of what I want to discuss.

I consider myself a very good player - I run lists that are unconventional which always perform against these "net lists". In tournaments I have accumulated some good results with these. I have used an Iyanden Wraith army to near table a triple riptide list, I have tabled a Wave Serpent Spam army (that also had 2 wraithknights) with an IG mechansed army that had no blob squad, but also utilised Leman Russes. I have finished second at a 1250 tournament with an Ork Army whose only orks were the HQs. Everything else was killa kans or Gretchin. My Tournament Resumé for the last 2 years reads as follows:

- 1 Win with Pure Eldar (30 Foot slogging Wraithguard - previous Eldar Codex)
- 1 Win with Pure IG (Vendettas, Leman Russes)
- 1 Win with IG/Iyanden
- 1 Win With Dark Eldar / Eldar (No wave serpents or Wraithknights)
- 1 2nd Place With orks (90 gretchin army, no orks besides HQ)
- 1 2nd Place with Space Marines (previous codex, Pods with pedro)
- 1 3nd Place with Space Marines (previous codex, Pods with pedro)

The reason that I want to list these records, is to highlight that I have beaten "Net lists" with armies that are not considered to be "optimal". To get back to my point - many of the ETC players, and other players who strive to be "more competitive", forever seem to be jumping codexes onto the newest sexiest thing. I'm curious to know whether the same practises go on across the pond. I think that the deeper we get into 6th Edition, the better it gets for game balance. I would feel confident in taking an old codex to a tournament and giving a reasonable account of myself.

Also as well - certainly at least in the UK tournament scene - the "top guys" tend to be the ones who are the codex jumpers. I wonder if this is because of their skill level (or the skill level of their opponents), or whether it's because some new toy is screwing with the meta. I am (probably in the Minority) a firm believer that the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy is slowly fading for 40k. I think this is a great thing. Once every army has been revisited in 6th edition (that day won't be far away given GW's release schedule). In my last event, I took a Dark Eldar Army with Eldar Allies (jetbikes/venoms). In 2 rounds I played grey knights, who with Psycannons and Dakka dreads offer significant threats to me. I tabled both armies. That's not to say that It was pure skill on my part - some unlucky shooting contributed to my wins, but if I'd taken that matchup on paper to one of the "super competitive" guys, i'd likely have been told I would get smashed.

So I guess what i'm boiling down to is this - do you think "Net Lists" are required to be competitive at top tier tournaments? My answer on this is a resounding no - but i;m really keen to hear your thoughts on this Dakka.

Thanks if you read this to the end!!!!

Net lists in the hands of incompetent generals will probably loose.

The same goes for novice tourney goers who, faced with a net list of ungodly powers! will probably cave in.

Net lists aid percentages (in a dice rolling game like 40k) but luck and skill have parts to play. But net lists are not necessary to enable victory or success at tourneys.

Net lists also have the weakness of being popular and predictable. If you know what the majority are going to run, you can counter tailor and stand a good chance to get those list matchups. This happens all the time in magic the gathering, and is the reason why the counter lists often take home the prize, despite being weaker than the top lists.

Lots of people playing net lists have minimal practice with them.

Someone who practices with a specific list against lots of armies will always out perform a blind net lister.

But there is something to be said for someone who practices a lot, and gets a lot of familiarity and experience with a specific list *and* that list is a under costed, mathematically superior net list.

nkelsch wrote:
Lots of people playing net lists have minimal practice with them.

Someone who practices with a specific list against lots of armies will always out perform a blind net lister.

But there is something to be said for someone who practices a lot, and gets a lot of familiarity and experience with a specific list *and* that list is a under costed, mathematically superior net list.

I've found this is very true with games such as MTG, so I can see it applying in 40k as well. Sure, it's fun to win, but I find it more fun to smash face with a list I've created and played with for a while.

Player skill first. List 2nd.

In the case of unskilled netlist (UN) player vs skilled non-traditional list (SNT) player, the SNT player has the advantage.

Skilled netlist (SN) player vs unskilled non-traditional list (UNT) player = domination by the SN player (this is what we generally refer to as "clubbing baby seals").

In the case of SN player vs SNT player, the skilled netlist player will have the advantage.

It's easy to put this theory to the test. Just play against some of the great players - the ETC players - and you will see just how tough their "netlists" are because of the general behind the lists.

Playing against a Quad-tide Tau list run by John Doe is much, much different from one run by, say, Justin Cook (Nova winner).

Ill bite on this topic. "Net lists" are a bit of a misnomer. Some units are better than others within a codex and especially within a FOC slot. Many times this is mathematically demonstrable. If someone is making a list, and decides to pick the obvious 'best' unit in a FOC, and somewhere else in the world another person has the same idea and runs the numbers the same way in their head, is the second copying the first--especially if neither shared ideas on the internet?

For example, you said you won some games with a pure IG army with vendettas and russes--no blob. In my neck of the woods we have a player running a very similar force. Surely one of you is a 'net lister' in this case right?

If you have been playing for a while, you may remember the 'leafblower' term being used to describe a style of IG army popular in 5th ed. Nick Rose, the person who made the list, used demovets, missile pod valkyries with zero vendettas, and a mix of medusas and manticores as the literal 'Leafblower.' However, everyone who played IG and included any number of vendettas and/or manticores was considered a 'Leafblower' clone for a long, long time. We still here people describe IG armies as a 'Leafblower.' The truth though is that almost zero people ran Nick's exact 'Leafblower' and instead switched to vendettas and different heavy support and troop options, completely changing the point of leafblower, making the lists unique to them. Despite that, they got incorrectly branded a net list.

In my competitive arena we very, VERY rarely see identical lists. We often see similar lists, because people have basic reasoning skills and can often recognize a good unit when they see it. So Grey Hunters instead of Blood Claws, Riptides instead of Crisis Suits, Wraithknights instead of Wraithlords.

Now, people who dont use some obvious choices like Grey Hunters instead of Blood Claws either 1) Dont care about winning the competitive tournies as they play for fun/fluff/hobby, thus are less likely to be on the top tables, or 2) dont understand why Grey Hunters are better, again making it less likely to be on a top table.

So yeah, TRUE net listing is not a real thing in the east coast of America, and I imagine its the same in most places. Including any amount of tau or eldar in your army does not a net list make!

Bottom line: No, net lists aren't required at tourneys.

I think there's a huge difference between using good core units and 'netlisting.' Many people take a popular concept and tweak it here and there to make it their own and to fit in with their existing meta. A few people carbon copy tournament lists, spend huge amounts of money to field plastic-grey armies at tournaments, only to mothball them the day the newest codex comes out, all in order to "be competitive."

Personally, if the player is young, I blame WoW for teaching them to think that there's only one 'right' way to do something. (If they're older, I blame Axis & Allies for the same. ) Personally, I'm with you liam. I don't want to copy someone else's list, I want to pioneer my own. I think that one of the most powerful factors in this game is experience, and if my opponent has no experience facing my particular army combination, I have a potent advantage.

Thanks for your informative responses so far guys. To come back on a couple of points:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Net lists in the hands of incompetent generals will probably loose.

The same goes for novice tourney goers who, faced with a net list of ungodly powers! will probably cave in.

Net lists aid percentages (in a dice rolling game like 40k) but luck and skill have parts to play. But net lists are not necessary to enable victory or success at tourneys.

I would agree with this. Most of the ETC players are skilled players who use "net lists" (I will come back to this term in a second), I usually win around 50-60% of the time against them? We also have players who are less experienced who run this sort of list. I usually win about 90% of games against these players.

Orock wrote:
Net lists also have the weakness of being popular and predictable. If you know what the majority are going to run, you can counter tailor and stand a good chance to get those list matchups. This happens all the time in magic the gathering, and is the reason why the counter lists often take home the prize, despite being weaker than the top lists.

I do and I don't agree with this. On the one hand, sure Hydra spam would have a chance against the old Cron Air list (the meta has shifted a bit since then), but that army may not necessarily be good against much else.

nkelsch wrote:
Lots of people playing net lists have minimal practice with them.

Someone who practices with a specific list against lots of armies will always out perform a blind net lister.

But there is something to be said for someone who practices a lot, and gets a lot of familiarity and experience with a specific list *and* that list is a under costed, mathematically superior net list.

I think this is a key point. Cookie cutter lists usually have some "knack" of strategy to their use beyond "point click die".

 jy2 wrote:
Player skill first. List 2nd.

In the case of unskilled netlist (UN) player vs skilled non-traditional list (SNT) player, the SNT player has the advantage.

Skilled netlist (SN) player vs unskilled non-traditional list (UNT) player = domination by the SN player (this is what we generally refer to as "clubbing baby seals").

In the case of SN player vs SNT player, the skilled netlist player will have the advantage.

It's easy to put this theory to the test. Just play against some of the great players - the ETC players - and you will see just how tough their "netlists" are because of the general behind the lists.

Playing against a Quad-tide Tau list run by John Doe is much, much different from one run by, say, Justin Cook (Nova winner).

I also agree with this post too. I've certainly found that the stronger ETC players that use these "net lists" are tougher to beat. The player that (I would consider anyway) to be the best in Scotland doesn't use "Net lists". I remember the last tournament that I went to, I played him on the top table in the last round with My Iyanden Wraithguard against his Chaos Daemons. No Screamer star, Fateweaver was there, but it was mostly Nurgle spawn backed up by plague drones and Flesh hounds. A very solid list. Had the game ended on turn 5 or 6 I would have won, but time dragged on unfortunately. Still, It was a really fun game (and very competitive), between 2 armies which I'd certainly not consider "top tier".

My Dark Eldar / Eldar Corsairs have tabled a triple riptide army as well - but in that particular instance, the player (although still decent) is probably not on the level of the player above. So I fully agree with your post jy2.

DevianID wrote:
Ill bite on this topic. "Net lists" are a bit of a misnomer. Some units are better than others within a codex and especially within a FOC slot. Many times this is mathematically demonstrable. If someone is making a list, and decides to pick the obvious 'best' unit in a FOC, and somewhere else in the world another person has the same idea and runs the numbers the same way in their head, is the second copying the first--especially if neither shared ideas on the internet?

For example, you said you won some games with a pure IG army with vendettas and russes--no blob. In my neck of the woods we have a player running a very similar force. Surely one of you is a 'net lister' in this case right?

If you have been playing for a while, you may remember the 'leafblower' term being used to describe a style of IG army popular in 5th ed. Nick Rose, the person who made the list, used demovets, missile pod valkyries with zero vendettas, and a mix of medusas and manticores as the literal 'Leafblower.' However, everyone who played IG and included any number of vendettas and/or manticores was considered a 'Leafblower' clone for a long, long time. We still here people describe IG armies as a 'Leafblower.' The truth though is that almost zero people ran Nick's exact 'Leafblower' and instead switched to vendettas and different heavy support and troop options, completely changing the point of leafblower, making the lists unique to them. Despite that, they got incorrectly branded a net list.

In my competitive arena we very, VERY rarely see identical lists. We often see similar lists, because people have basic reasoning skills and can often recognize a good unit when they see it. So Grey Hunters instead of Blood Claws, Riptides instead of Crisis Suits, Wraithknights instead of Wraithlords.

Now, people who dont use some obvious choices like Grey Hunters instead of Blood Claws either 1) Dont care about winning the competitive tournies as they play for fun/fluff/hobby, thus are less likely to be on the top tables, or 2) dont understand why Grey Hunters are better, again making it less likely to be on a top table.

So yeah, TRUE net listing is not a real thing in the east coast of America, and I imagine its the same in most places. Including any amount of tau or eldar in your army does not a net list make!

I think this is an excellent post. And you make some very good points. Perhaps "net list" is the wrong term. There is a "core" of units, that make any list the "latest uber cheese". For example, Daemons is Screamer Council, Tau is 3/4 Riptides, Eldar is Serpent or Wraithknight Spam, Chaos is 3 hell-turkeys etc. The list goes on. That's maybe more about what I mean - once players have that "core", the basic army is solid no matter what else is selected.

I'll give you some more context on some of the lists I have ran in the above events:

1500 Points - Dark Eldar/Eldar Corsairs

Dark Eldar(Primary Detachment)
----------------------------------

HQ
-----------

Baron Sathonyx


Troops
---------------

Kabalite Warriors
5x Kabalite Warrior
5x Splinter Rifle
Venom
Flickerfield, Nightshield, Splinter Cannon

Kabalite Warriors
5x Kabalite Warrior
5x Splinter Rifle
Venom
Flickerfield, Nightshield, Splinter Cannon

Kabalite Warriors
5x Kabalite Warrior
5x Splinter Rifle
Venom
Flickerfield, Nightshield, Splinter Cannon

Kabalite Warriors
5x Kabalite Warrior
5x Splinter Rifle
Venom
Flickerfield, Nightshield, Splinter Cannon


Fast Attack
----------------------

6 Reaver Jetbikes
2x Cluster catrops 2x Heat Lance


Heavy Support
-----------------------------

Voidraven Bomber


Eldar (Allied Detachment)
--------------------------------


HQ
-----------


Autarch
Fusion gun, Haywire grenades, Laser Lance, Mantle of the Laughing God Plasma grenades, Shuriken pistol, The Phoenix Gem
Eldar Jetbike


Troops
---------------


Windrider Jetbike Squadron
6x Guardian Jetbikes, Shuriken Cannon

Windrider Jetbike Squadron
6x Guardian Jetbikes, 2 Shuriken Cannons

Fast Attack
----------------------

Shining Spears
6x Shining Spear
Exarch
Star Lance


Eldar (Old Codex) - 1750
--------------------------------------------------

Eldrad
Farseer

10 Wraithguard with Conceal Spiritseer
10 Wraithguard with Conceal Spiritseer
10 Wraithguard with Conceal Spiritseer

7 Harlequins
7 Harlequins


Orks - 1250
----------------------------------------------

HQ
Big Mek

Bosspole (Bosspole), Cybork body (Cybork Body), Mek's tools (Mek's Tools), Power klaw , Shokk attack gun
Big Mek
Furious Charge, Independent Character, Mob Rule, Waaagh!
Bosspole (Bosspole), Cybork body ((Cybork Body), Kustom force field (Kustom Force Field), Mek's tools (Mek's Tools), Power klaw

Troops
15x Gretchin
Runtherd

15x Gretchin
Runtherd

15x Gretchin
Runtherd

15x Gretchin
Runtherd

15x Gretchin
Runtherd


15x Gretchin
Runtherd


Fast Attack

Dakkajet
Waagh! Plane
2 Twin-linked supa shootas, Additional twin-linked supa shoota , Fighta Ace

Dakkajet
Waagh! Plane
2 Twin-linked supa shootas, Additional twin-linked supa shoota , Fighta Ace

Killa Kans
Killa Kan
Big shoota , Dreadnought close combat weapon
Killa Kan
Big shoota , Dreadnought close combat weapon
Killa Kan
Big shoota , Dreadnought close combat weapon

Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Rokkit launcha
Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Rokkit launcha
Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Rokkit launcha
Killa Kans
Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Skorcha
Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Skorcha
Killa Kan
Dreadnought close combat weapon, Skorcha

1500 IG
------------------------------

HQ
-------------
Company COmmand Squad w/ 3 Melta vets In Chimera

Troops
--------------

Veterans w/ 3 x Meltaguns
Veterans w/ 3 x Meltaguns
Veterans w/ 3 x Plasma guns

Fast Attack
-----------------------

Vendetta
Vendetta
Vendetta

Heavy Support
--------------------------

Pask in Punisher w/ Heavy Bolters

2 x Executioners w/ Lascannons
----------------------------------------------------------

So yes I would definitely agree there are similarities. It's actually ncie to see some of my lists written down like this. What do you guys think? Am I just as bad as the "net listers" I've been talking about?

As many think of 'net list,' yes.

Like I mentioned, your IG list would have been (perhaps still will be) called a leafblower, despite not having any of the same exact units leafblower did.

Your Kan list may be called out as "oh, the old Kan wall again" at a tournament, despite your lack of ork troops behind the wall.

The old eldar is clearly a 'Wraithwing,' despite no Wraithlords, your dark eldar is clearly 'venom spam' despite its heavy emphasis on bikes over only venoms.

Is any of that really true? Of course not; your IG is not THE Leafblower, your Wraithwing is not THE Eldar Wraithwing, your DE is not THE venom spam. However, all lists tend to be very easy to label. Does it matter to the majority of players you meet if the label is correct or even justified? Heck no! If you have to explain why your DE is not a TRUE venom spam, you have already lost the battle, as you already got labeled.

So yeah, with those lists, as well as the poor defination of 'net list' to average players, your a dirty 'net lister' too! Doesnt matter if your the only person playing that exact list, once the label gets applied its all over.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Bottom line: No, net lists aren't required at tourneys.

I think there's a huge difference between using good core units and 'netlisting.' Many people take a popular concept and tweak it here and there to make it their own and to fit in with their existing meta. A few people carbon copy tournament lists, spend huge amounts of money to field plastic-grey armies at tournaments, only to mothball them the day the newest codex comes out, all in order to "be competitive."

Personally, if the player is young, I blame WoW for teaching them to think that there's only one 'right' way to do something. (If they're older, I blame Axis & Allies for the same. ) Personally, I'm with you liam. I don't want to copy someone else's list, I want to pioneer my own. I think that one of the most powerful factors in this game is experience, and if my opponent has no experience facing my particular army combination, I have a potent advantage.

I would also agree with this post. I much prefer taking my own lists, and getting the recognition for devising something cool rather than spam the newest "sexiness". Take my Dark Eldar list for example - i've played about 10 games so far and tabled; Space Marines (2 Land raiders + Centurions), Tau Empire (Triple Riptide + Allied Wraithknight), Podding Blood angels, Grey Knight Dakka Dreads, and Nids (double devourer Flyrant + 2 tervigons).

I think there are 2 matchups in the above list which are greatly favourable for my army, and 2 which are not so favourable. I would like to think it says something about my list (and me as a player) that I can use the army to adapt to a variety of situations and come out on top.

That being said - I would certainly not favout my chances against a wall of Chimeras, or Wave Serpent Spam, or 3 hell-turkeys. I would give it my absolute best, and I'm sure i would give my opponent a good game. In general, against many matchups we are seeing these days, I think my DE list is strong, and i'm going to be taking it to tournaments for a long time. I would like to think (maybe a pipe dream) that one day the "corsair list" will be one of those "net lists". It would feel nice to see that other players recognised the potential, and followed suit.

DevianID wrote:
As many think of 'net list,' yes.

Like I mentioned, your IG list would have been (perhaps still will be) called a leafblower, despite not having any of the same exact units leafblower did.

Your Kan list may be called out as "oh, the old Kan wall again" at a tournament, despite your lack of ork troops behind the wall.

The old eldar is clearly a 'Wraithwing,' despite no Wraithlords, your dark eldar is clearly 'venom spam' despite its heavy emphasis on bikes over only venoms.

Is any of that really true? Of course not; your IG is not THE Leafblower, your Wraithwing is not THE Eldar Wraithwing, your DE is not THE venom spam. However, all lists tend to be very easy to label. Does it matter to the majority of players you meet if the label is correct or even justified? Heck no! If you have to explain why your DE is not a TRUE venom spam, you have already lost the battle, as you already got labeled.

So yeah, with those lists, as well as the poor defination of 'net list' to average players, your a dirty 'net lister' too! Doesnt matter if your the only person playing that exact list, once the label gets applied its all over.

I think you're right here again. Certainly at the last tournament my DE list was labelled cheesy by more than 1 player. To use your specific example, a Dark Eldar army can have 9 (i think) venoms maximum? 6 small units of wracks, 3 units of trueborn with splinter cannons all in venoms. That's closer to "optimal" in terms of Venom spam I think.

I discussed my list with friends and gamers in the area before I rolled it out. There was a great deal of pressure to opt for wracks instead of Dark Eldar Warriors. Personally, for this army I think that is the wrong choice. There are so many jetbikes that scoring late in the game should not be an issue. Plus, thre are an extra 20/40 poison shots a turn. That could very much make the difference against a large gribbly. I can't remember the last time I saw wracks do anything except hold an objective.

I would be Lying if I said I didn't want to win every game i played - I think it's probably fair to say that any player who attends a tournament probably feels this way on some level. That being said, I do like my armies to have a theme. When was the last time you seen shining spears in an eldar detatchment? I certainly have never seen this - in 5th or 6th edition. But they have consistently performed in my list, as has everything else (except the fail raven, which you can bank on rolling 2, 2 every turn!).

Actually you can squeeze in 11, if you take archons with courts as HQ's. 2 HQ rides, 3 elite, 6 troop.

Double FOC opens up a few more...

That said the Venom, while good, is not the kill all shiz that people claim it to be.