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.

First off, let me introduce myself as humbly as I can, since I need to somehow convey my background while also not coming off as delusional or pretentious whatsoever. I have no intentions or aspirations other than to share my experiences and realizations after analyzing those experiences. I played 40k from the age of 12 to about 15 which consisted of playing games with my cousins to pass the time. I found the game again in the spring of 2013, went to my first big event at the Feast of Blades open later that year, have gone to the local GTs in my city (Genghis Con and Tacticon in Denver) and participated in the most recent Feast of Blades invitational and this weekend's LVO where my performance was not much to speak of. In my past I've been competitive at very high levels of hockey and golf, kickball (to a much lesser and serious extent), and did a brief stint as a competitive Guild Wars player in its inaugural year. It is my opinion that these experiences, along with the people that have tutored me along the way, have given me a very strict definition of what 'competitive' means and have recently been comparing it to my experiences with the 40k community as a whole. While the greater plan is to write a series of editorials and commentary regarding these topics, I thought I'd keep it simple to begin with in this first attempt.

Let me preface this by saying that I have a stubborn belief that no core rule should be changed within the game and Reece can attest to how much hell I gave him when the invisibility nerf was approved. I play daemons and while I already knew that running a list based on invis with Belakor was foolish, it didn't sway me in the belief that watering it down was the wrong way to go because it removes a tool from the possibilities of this game.

In a jaded attempt to bring my own big toy to the party, I painted up the dreamforge knight that had been collecting dust on the shelf as a counts as Castigator, and painted it to the theme of Dorothy (thanks for posting her on the site, Larry!) from the Wizard of Oz in an attempt at cleverness as a commentary on the state of 40k in comparison to the same exact time one year previous. What I then discovered this weekend was that Dorothy was actually more of a handicap than tool, since she ended up giving my opponent's first blood in 4 out of 6 games, I only ever got to stomp once, and I found myself on more than one occasion, playing her very conservatively against players who didn't bring a super heavy, for fear that they would feel blighted or cheated from her inclusion in my list. In the end, I would've been better off competitively if I had left Dorothy behind, but she was definitely an ice breaker with my opponents and brought a smile to many players over the weekend, for which I have no regrets.

At the end of the qualification rounds, while looking over the lists that performed well within the event and hashing it out with my friends, I went through the motions of analyzing what I could've done better at the event. I was sick with a cold this entire weekend and found myself blaming that for my first day performance (1-2) and while it may have played some part in keeping my concentration, I was brutally honest with myself and made my colleagues laugh when I looked at them and said, "I just need to stop being a bad 40k player."

While many people have reacted to the top lists with surprise and shock, I used to run very similar MSU type lists in 6th ed (aka death star 40k ed) and while I didn't blow anyone away, I always made my opponent have to grind and work for the win, something I still do today, a trait that I picked up from when I was competitive in other arenas outside of 40k. The truth of the matter is that those two players deserved to be at the top table because they outplayed everyone, period. They played incredibly tight, left as little to chance as possible (a feat in and of itself in a dice game), and brought lists that could out maneuver, out play, and out wit their opponent's throughout the entire weekend.

On the final day, after the final table had been decided, I was surprised to hear a few others sarcastically say that super heavies and forgeworld are SO OP, and while I did agree with some of their sentiment, I was turned off by how judgmental they were of their peers and still feel like super heavies and forgeworld have some serious cons when included in the competitive meta, but we'll leave that for another post. Anyways, if anything, we can all learn a lot from the top performers at LVO this weekend and it isn't anything new. KNOW YOUR ARMY.

40k is an interesting community from a sociological perspective to say the least with no help in part from GW itself. I've heard stories about the "good ol' days" where the release schedule was gradual and so predictable that it allowed players to truly identify the strongest army and list out there, resulting in a tournament scene where a lot of people ended up having the exact same list. While this is surely beneficial from a financial point of view, it didn't do a whole lot to grow the tournament attendance and actually had the problem of turning more people away who didn't want to face the same thing over and over again.

Now that the release schedule has gone in the polar opposite direction, it's amusing to still see complaints, possibly even more complaints than before. What the truly competitive players generally come to a consensus over, hasn't seemed to trickle down to the community as hoped, but here it is spelled out in black and white, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST EDITIONS AND TIMES TO BE A COMPETITIVE 40K PLAYER.

So far we have had 7 army updates in 7th ed, with Nids, Knights, and Guard possibly being considered as "7th ed compliant" with the proximity of their releases to the release of 7th ed. It can generally be agreed that while these codices are watered down in comparison to Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc, when put up against each other, this game is incredibly balanced. The amount of choices we all have in army organization through supplements, detachments, and allies is truly unprecedented and the amount of variety in armies brought to LVO supports this train of thought. While you may have seen a lot of the same combinations of allies, the units, upgrades, and play styles truly set everyone apart from one another which was very apparent in all 6 of my opponents, though one could argue that my experiences don't hold a lot of water since I finished 2-4 for the weekend, you can make your own judgment, I guess.

Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack. (Waterboy anyone?)
All joking aside, the point I want to discuss is that we should STOP NET LISTING and become better players for the betterment of ourselves and the hobby; because continually chasing the meta during this rapid release schedule of GW's is a surefire way to lose money on models from playing the eBay shuffle, and inevitably losing interest in the game as a whole due to the ups and downs of the rat race. The top lists show that despite popular opinon, units are that are generally perceived as bad, have their uses when utilized creatively in the hands of someone who knows that they're doing when put into a list with well thought out purpose, in preparation for a particular format with terrain that makes that format work. End of story.

Rather than listen to the talking heads and jaded opinions of what a good list should consist of, DO YOUR OWN THING, bring something counter to the meta, be practiced and methodical in its implementation, and prove those detractors wrong. This may not hold a lot of water for some of you, but to be perfectly honest, you'll garner more respect by beating someone in your own way than a predictable method that you cut and pasted. It'll lessen the stress on your patience and wallet every time you feel tempted to buy into the next new OP perceived model or army list.

My roommate this weekend went 2nd overall Nids using 3 Flyrants (standard but not SUPER spammy), 2 squads of 10 Hormagaunts, 3 squads of 3 rippers with DS, 2 squads of 3 zoanthropes with neurothrope upgrades, 1 malanthrope, 1 dimachaeron, 1 exocrine, and 1 squad of 3 biovores in a CAD and hive fleet detachment. He told me he was considering including some lictors in the next amalgamation of his list and I cut him off, told him that he's a good player, and to play his own list. The top 2 nid primary lists at the LVO set a limit on 3 flyrants and neither had a barbed hierodule. Stop depriving yourself of learning to become better players by taking those perceived OP units because if we approach this game honestly, those units are crutches. I'm never going to judge someone across from me from bringing a super heavy or spamming in their army list (I've done it too, we all have), but I will say that in life, there IS such thing as too much of a good thing. Approach 40k like you approach other aspects in your life where balance is found through moderation and restraint.

That being said, let's punch each other in the face with good sportsmanship and realistic, honest break downs on how things could have gone better if we made a different choice, two, or in my case 20 choices within a game.

I'll be posting more about other things I've come to realize after this weekend which will probably be just as long winded and filled with tangents and opinions, so if you made it this far and like what you read, please stay tuned and wait patiently. Real life has to take priority over my plastic toys sometimes.

PS I seem to have left out that I sent an email to Reece thanking him for putting on a fantastic event and apologizing to him for my lack of faith that he knew what he was doing when he nerfed invis. The format and terrain made it to where even my unbuffed units had a chance to survive and it just kept me honest when I had to space my models appropriately to diminish the effect of template, blast, and large blast weapons. I'll always admit when I've been proven wrong. I would've edited this somewhere earlier in the post, but was at a loss as to where it should be inserted.

gory_v wrote:
STOP NET LISTING

Why? Netlisting is the inevitable consequence of the internet enabling easy communication between players. There will always be better lists and worse lists, and when people are able to discuss it easily they will always find the better lists and publish them. Saying "don't netlist" is essentially saying "stop making good decisions, I think it's more fun when you make bad choices".

Good post. I'll admit, I'm still jaded towards superheavies, LoWs, FW and some bad units, but I try to give every unit a fair shot in how efficient it is. Even some units that are bad really aren't, there's just things that do the same better or for cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

gory_v wrote:
STOP NET LISTING

Why? Netlisting is the inevitable consequence of the internet enabling easy communication between players. There will always be better lists and worse lists, and when people are able to discuss it easily they will always find the better lists and publish them. Saying "don't netlist" is essentially saying "stop making good decisions, I think it's more fun when you make bad choices".

Wrong. He's saying don't play the first list you can download, he's saying make up your own combinations. Its not about cutting off discussion, itsvabout encouraging players to grow by using " bad" units or unusual strategies.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wrong. He's saying don't play the first list you can download, he's saying make up your own combinations. Its not about cutting off discussion, itsvabout encouraging players to grow by using " bad" units or unusual strategies.

But why should you keep reinventing the wheel by making the same bad choices that other people have already tried and rejected? I don't understand this praise for being stubborn and ignoring good advice just because you didn't invent it yourself. Part of being a good competitive player is using all of your resources, and that includes the testing work other people have done.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wrong. He's saying don't play the first list you can download, he's saying make up your own combinations. Its not about cutting off discussion, itsvabout encouraging players to grow by using " bad" units or unusual strategies.

But why should you keep reinventing the wheel by making the same bad choices that other people have already tried and rejected? I don't understand this praise for being stubborn and ignoring good advice just because you didn't invent it yourself. Part of being a good competitive player is using all of your resources, and that includes the testing work other people have done.

What I don't get about this situation is that one of the biggest gripes with 40k as it stands is the lack of balance, and yet the most common suggestion whenever anyone is looking for tactics is to push people towards exploiting that same imbalance. When you have the same hypothetical person saying 'Serpent Spam is OP and makes the game no fun' in a General Discussion thread, and then going over to Army Lists to tell someone to fit more Serpents into their list. I just don't get how this disconnect can exist whereby the same people are both bemoaning imbalance and exploiting it. Surely a better attitude would be to try and move away from that, to think outside the box as the OP suggests, and not reward the imbalance by exploiting it to the full?

Oh, please don't see this as a judgment about netlisting followed by discussion and due diligence. What I was trying to convey is that if you take a net list and aren't fully aware of the nuances and capabilities of that list from personal experience, you only have yourself to blame when it all goes pear shaped. You know what I mean? Community through list building is a very good aspect of this hobby, just please find some restraint when judging others in their attempts to do their own thing.

As I mentioned in the OP, this is my first attempt at putting something out there and I did it with very little editing. I am sure that there are moments within the post where I, myself, have holes in my train of thought and flaws in my reasoning.

The overwhelming message that I want to convey is that there is no one way to win at this game, so get creative and find your own solutions to these problems if you can't find someone out there to talk shop with. I also wanted you all to think deep about how you participate within the 40k community.

 Paradigm wrote:
I just don't get how this disconnect can exist whereby the same people are both bemoaning imbalance and exploiting it.

There's no disconnect at all. It's entirely consistent to say "X is overpowered" and "if you want to win use X", the latter is just recognition of the former. There's only an issue if you assume some bizarre moral obligation to give bad strategic advice to persuade people not to use overpowered things.

Surely a better attitude would be to try and move away from that, to think outside the box as the OP suggests, and not reward the imbalance by exploiting it to the full?

Which only works if everyone agrees not to use the overpowered stuff. Otherwise you just create a situation where the people who exploit poor balance get to win, and everyone else cripples their own lists and loses.

if you noticed, net lists performed underweight there. They where mostly in the middle

 Peregrine wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I just don't get how this disconnect can exist whereby the same people are both bemoaning imbalance and exploiting it.

There's no disconnect at all. It's entirely consistent to say "X is overpowered" and "if you want to win use X", the latter is just recognition of the former. There's only an issue if you assume some bizarre moral obligation to give bad strategic advice to persuade people not to use overpowered things.

There is a disconnect when 'X is Overpowered' is held as a bad thing by the same people. To use an extreme analogy, it's like saying 'mugging is bad, but do it because you get free stuff!'. If the netlisters out there would start admitting that they love imbalance and exploiting it then I would get it, but when those same people are saying '40k needs more balance' and 'take the most broken stuff' it just doesn't make sense to me.

I sometimes wonder what all the people who played those lists that rely on expoiting imbalance would do if 40k actually were balanced...

 Paradigm wrote:
There is a disconnect when 'X is Overpowered' is held as a bad thing by the same people. To use an extreme analogy, it's like saying 'mugging is bad, but do it because you get free stuff!'. If the netlisters out there would start admitting that they love imbalance and exploiting it then I would get it, but when those same people are saying '40k needs more balance' and 'take the most broken stuff' it just doesn't make sense to me.

Again, they're two separate issues. One is a belief about what GW should do, the other is advice about what you should do given that GW isn't doing what we want. I want GW to fix the game, but if they don't I'm certainly not going to cripple my own lists just to claim some bizarre "I don't netlist" moral high ground, nor am I going to lie to people and tell them to take weak units just so they don't exploit the "wrong" things.

Netlists... yeah they only really exist in a few places, the vast majority do what the op suggested, if you live in a mega competitive area then you will more than likely see the netlists, anywhere else like peoples basements, normal shops etc. it is very rare to see one as the community doesn't want it, if it did, it would be a competitive area, I know its a circular argument but its still true.

Its nice for me as my local meta is very CC orientated, and that means even my chaos marine bezerker army can actually bring the pain, and I am happy with that, take away the competitive and you suddenly have a better game, not balanced as GW haven't a clue, but better

I'm not asking that you give terrible advice to those who seek help. I'm asking that you give them honest, well thought out advice based on what they are trying to accomplish, the pros and cons of the units they include and their how the intend to use them, then provide constructive advice on how they could proceed.

Nothing is worse than being told your collection of toys is hopeless. Teach new players to be crafty, not to conform to popular opinion.

An example of this in another realm is Seve Ballesteros, the professional golfer. Growing up he only ever had one club, a 5 iron, but on the beaches where he learned to play, he taught himself to hit every kind of shot imaginable with that club, a strength that separated him from the pack when he was at his peak and something that he is still very much known as being one of the best at. He was creative enough to make it work, regardless of what situations he found himself in around the golf course.

gory_v wrote:
I'm not asking that you give terrible advice to those who seek help. I'm asking that you give them honest, well thought out advice based on what they are trying to accomplish, the pros and cons of the units they include and their how the intend to use them, then provide constructive advice on how they could proceed.

And most of the time that means "X is overpowered, here's a good netlist that exploits it". Telling people that their bad lists/units are wonderful isn't helping anyone.

Nothing is worse than being told your collection of toys is hopeless.

Too bad, sometimes the truth hurts.

Teach new players to be crafty, not to conform to popular opinion.

Why not do both, and teach them to be crafty with the best possible lists? I don't see why there's this bizarre idea that playing with weak lists means you're a better player.

 Formosa wrote:
Netlists... yeah they only really exist in a few places, the vast majority do what the op suggested, if you live in a mega competitive area then you will more than likely see the netlists, anywhere else like peoples basements, normal shops etc. it is very rare to see one as the community doesn't want it, if it did, it would be a competitive area, I know its a circular argument but its still true.

Its nice for me as my local meta is very CC orientated, and that means even my chaos marine bezerker army can actually bring the pain, and I am happy with that, take away the competitive and you suddenly have a better game, not balanced as GW haven't a clue, but better

Just wait, I plan on writing more about what competitive means to me, how we can all learn to reach across these rifts in 40k, and put out a call to stop scape goating one another for this hobbies problems. It's in the works. I'm not looking for recognition, I just want to do what I can to help us recognize these common problems and help us move towards filling in these cracks for the betterment of our hobby as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And most of the time that means "X is overpowered, here's a good netlist that exploits it". Telling people that their bad lists/units are wonderful isn't helping anyone.

I don't want to come off as being pretentious here, but if you really think that you can compare a majority of the units in our game so linearly, I wonder what you do when you're faced with a poor matchup. Do you admit that it's an uphill battle and try to play it out the way you always planned to play the list to begin with or do you look at the tools at your disposal, find a different approach, and grind until the bitter end? I've always been taught never to give up until the buzzer goes or the last putt drops, something I've brought with me in my approach to 40k. The odds of success to pull it off in some of my losses may not be very favorable, but this is a dice game. Wayne Gretsky said, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

You can absolutely do both and teach players to be crafty. But the odds of that player having to learn not to lean on their list's strengths at all times is less likely than if they start with a less optimized list within their personal learning experience.

gory_v wrote:
I'm not asking that you give terrible advice to those who seek help. I'm asking that you give them honest, well thought out advice based on what they are trying to accomplish, the pros and cons of the units they include and their how the intend to use them, then provide constructive advice on how they could proceed.

Nothing is worse than being told your collection of toys is hopeless. Teach new players to be crafty, not to conform to popular opinion.

An example of this in another realm is Seve Ballesteros, the professional golfer. Growing up he only ever had one club, a 5 iron, but on the beaches where he learned to play, he taught himself to hit every kind of shot imaginable with that club, a strength that separated him from the pack when he was at his peak and something that he is still very much known as being one of the best at. He was creative enough to make it work, regardless of what situations he found himself in around the golf course.

If they want to win, then the correct and helpful advice to give them is usually to include more of the best unit in the codex. If they want to use "Bad" units, let them know if they don't already that they've made a sub-par choice. If they still don't care and want to use it 'cause it's their favourite model/got it as a gift/want to try it/the counter is not in their meta, then give them tips on how to get the best out of it.

If they are a new player, they probably have units they think are cool, and as such, are bad. If they are not told that units like Thousand Sons or Vespid are bad, then what good is not telling them going to achieve? If they bury their head in the sand and continue to use bad units, then a couple of things are likely to happen - 1) they will continue to lose 2) They will get significantly better at the game than someone who wanders in and facerolls with serpent spam/knights/centstar etc 3) they will get frustrated at continually losing and quit or 4) they will lament the money they wasted on bad units and spend even more buying either the good units they should have gotten in the 1st place or simply buy a good army that isn't DA/CSM/Tempestus/whatever.

It's certainly a rough way of learning, but it often works. This is the golf example you mentioned and it's the hard way of doing things. If someone wants a tau list, would you recommend the player to keep the vespid in his list? No, no sane person would, but if they end up playing with them for a long time, then eventually switch them for plasma crisis, then they will be much more effective with the crisis as they operate in a similar way,. but the crisis are just flat out better in virtually every way. Still means you're going through a hard slog when you lose most games you play because your opponent takes what works/is OP and you take whatever you like.

By all means, if someone wants to run unit [x], help them build a list around it, but if they have included a sub-par choice with no attachment to it, point it out and suggest a stronger alternative. Do they have TSons for marine killing? Cool, take double plasma CSM instead. Got Vespid for marine killing on a fast mobile platform? Cool, take Plasma crisis/IA 'Tide instead. Got a Whirlwind for anti hoard that hides out of LOS? Cool, take a TFC instead. Using TL Deathspitters on your Flyrant for killing infantry? Cool, use TL Devs instead.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
if you noticed, net lists performed underweight there. They where mostly in the middle

I'm not surprised actually as you see this over time at locations that practice alot.
You pick up the net lists to either try or accidentially made them yourself and you test them again and again. Your friends who are competitive get good at countering those lists and that net list start to change.

Those that don't get any good competitive challengers in their areas might be top of the game at their local meta but really just shows either they didn't have enough practice, or didn't get practice vs truly competitive and adaptive opponents.

Incidentally, those same opponents that are adaptive, learned how to counter these lists during their practice games and have an advantage over them as well since they've seen them already.

Netlisting really just is a problem with ability and/or time to practice against really good challenges during practice and list building.

@gory_v

Well said on pretty much everything. The original post and all the replies.

Your only issue is you posted it on a forum...on the internet. There'll always be someone out there wanting to pick apart someone else's words, and you really threw a bunch of stuff out there.

Just realize that people who agree with ya usually won't reply and say "great post", though you'll obviously get some of that. It's far more Dakka Dakka-like to crap all over someone's ideas to pass the time.

 Voidwraith wrote:
WY IS EVERYONE SO NEGATIVE!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Sorry, but it's a forum, bad ideas get criticized and good ideas get praised.

 Voidwraith wrote:
@gory_v

Well said on pretty much everything. The original post and all the replies.

Your only issue is you posted it on a forum...on the internet. There'll always be someone out there wanting to pick apart someone else's words, and you really threw a bunch of stuff out there.

Just realize that people who agree with ya usually won't reply and say "great post", though you'll obviously get some of that. It's far more Dakka Dakka-like to crap all over someone's ideas to pass the time.

You know you just did exactly what you are lamenting? You just brushed aside relative and genuine criticism of the thoughts put forth by the OP and belittled those people.

I personally disagree with what the OP is saying, I am not going to "crap all over" him or anything like that because it is very apparent that he is not interested in a conversation, just telling people his thoughts. That is not what a forum is for, it is what a blog is for.

Peregrine is correct though. Netlisting is going to happen in this game, because the way the game is currently designed, certain units in every Codex out-perform any other option for their slots, or offer the best value for their points in that slot compared to other, more-specialized units.

Does that suck? Yes.

Is there anything that can be done about it? Not really, not by the players, unless you're willing to allow fan-dexes and the like, or extensive house rules.

Does it suck to buy all the models you like the look of, only to find out that they are sub-par? Maybe. Depends on who you're playing against and where. If you're just playing with friends who also only buy the models they like (and none of them like Riptides or Wave Serpents), then you're probably going to be fine.

If you plan on playing that army competitively? Unless you really like Riptides or Wave Serpents, you're probably screwed.

Nice post gory_v. Great sentiment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
WY IS EVERYONE SO NEGATIVE!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Sorry, but it's a forum, bad ideas get criticized and good ideas get praised.

And sometimes good ideas get criticized and bad ideas get praised.

Full discloser, I don't give a rat's patooty if my opponent brings a Net List. I often find those that tend to blindly carbon copy other lists are not the most skilled players, and need all the help they can get. Not saying I don't look at Net Lists myself. I like to keep up with what's popular to see what might be facing me at the table. Also, it never hurts for inspiration to learn about what clever combinations people have come up with.

And sometimes good ideas get criticized and bad ideas get praised.

shhh it's my 4th wall meta breaking scheme to weaken my opponents.

My own random aside not directed to anyone in particular....

A few friends and I are preparing for our first semi-competitive tournament, which is comprised of probably 25 players... maybe two of which treat the game as unfun, super serious business.

In all of our first practice games/lists which chose things we enjoyed, or feel comfortable with. People were posting lists. LOTS of variety, lots of armies represented.

As the two power-gamers kept showing up to practice games, generally being rude, but more-so being hyper aggressive with their super-netlists, folks started tweaking their "fun" lists.

And then we did it some more....

.... and more.

Before long, word got around that now FIVE people were suddenly bringing Red-Scorpions-Loth-Centstar. etc... and even I boxed up my Sisters of Battle to take ultra-efficient SW/SM lists.

And somehow amongst that... the bulk of us agreed the event had become a lot less fun.

So we still have a week to go, and now it looks like a wall of "traditional" lists will bang against each-other and no one will come away having learned anyway about 40k, or being a good, diverse, and pleasant community.

As someone said earlier... a real problem happens competitively when 99% of players agree not to netlist, but a few bad-apples put winning above sportsmanship and everything else.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

As someone said earlier... a real problem happens competitively when 99% of players agree not to netlist, but a few bad-apples put winning above sportsmanship and everything else.

Looking at the Internet to learn what units are better and what groups of units provide synnergy shouldn't be a bad word. I mean, we do it for every other game, right? At the end of the day, using someone else's well-thought list may provide an edge, but does not compensate for a lack of experience and skill, though.

I think that everyone who is serious about 40k should look at netlists, learn their strengths, play them, play against them, and so forth. As has been stated, they aren't unbeatable, as they fare relatively poorly in the truly competitive scene; they are just easier to play. This is no different than a TCG, where netlists provide crappy players with a leg up to be competitive with mediocre players, but do nothing to elevate mediocre players to top-tier, where strategy, experience, and creativity win out. Winning in a truly competitive environment requires an understanding of the current meta, and both a list and strategies to be successful.

Gaming (whether TCG or Tabletop warfare) is less fun when people want to skip real strategy and creativity in lieu of a shortcut.

But, whatever. In your group:

The real "problem" that you're describing is that you want to have a semi-competitive event between 23 people who claim that they just want to play for fun (but for some, winning is still important), and 2 powergamers who don't mind saying they want to win and are willing to be more aggressive to do so.

You therefore have a few options if you want to keep it light and fluffy:

1. Have a conversation with the powergamers and tell them this isn't the spirit of your semi-competitive tournament.
2. Disinvite the powergamers. Maybe they don't fit.
3. Break the netlists by implementing house rules (for instance, the invisibility nerf). As the TO, make it clear to anyone that if they bring an exploitative list, they're wasting their money on models, because it will be nerfed.
4. Tell people that if they don't like your rules, there's the door.

Events are not a democracy. Gamers can be jerks, and so can TO's. Make it unattractive for the powergamers, and they will be disappointed, bitch, and move on. And guess what? If enough people hate your tyranical rule, they will all go play somewhere else and you will be left with nobody to play with. If everyone ACTUALLY wants to use best-unit lists, and either just doesn't know enough to, or doesn't own the models, then you just have to recognize that this is your local scene

Skimmed.Read the words "well balanced game" Was done reading fortress of text.

 Talys wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

As someone said earlier... a real problem happens competitively when 99% of players agree not to netlist, but a few bad-apples put winning above sportsmanship and everything else.

Looking at the Internet to learn what units are better and what groups of units provide synnergy shouldn't be a bad word. I mean, we do it for every other game, right? At the end of the day, using someone else's well-thought list may provide an edge, but does not compensate for a lack of experience and skill, though.

I think that everyone who is serious about 40k should look at netlists, learn their strengths, play them, play against them, and so forth. As has been stated, they aren't unbeatable, as they fare relatively poorly in the truly competitive scene; they are just easier to play. This is no different than a TCG, where netlists provide crappy players with a leg up to be competitive with mediocre players, but do nothing to elevate mediocre players to top-tier, where strategy, experience, and creativity win out. Winning in a truly competitive environment requires an understanding of the current meta, and both a list and strategies to be successful.

Gaming (whether TCG or Tabletop warfare) is less fun when people want to skip real strategy and creativity in lieu of a shortcut.

But, whatever. In your group:

The real "problem" that you're describing is that you want to have a semi-competitive event between 23 people who claim that they just want to play for fun (but for some, winning is still important), and 2 powergamers who don't mind saying they want to win and are willing to be more aggressive to do so.

You therefore have a few options if you want to keep it light and fluffy:

1. Have a conversation with the powergamers and tell them this isn't the spirit of your semi-competitive tournament.
2. Disinvite the powergamers. Maybe they don't fit.
3. Break the netlists by implementing house rules (for instance, the invisibility nerf). As the TO, make it clear to anyone that if they bring an exploitative list, they're wasting their money on models, because it will be nerfed.
4. Tell people that if they don't like your rules, there's the door.

Events are not a democracy. Gamers can be jerks, and so can TO's. Make it unattractive for the powergamers, and they will be disappointed, bitch, and move on. And guess what? If enough people hate your tyranical rule, they will all go play somewhere else and you will be left with nobody to play with. If everyone ACTUALLY wants to use best-unit lists, and either just doesn't know enough to, or doesn't own the models, then you just have to recognize that this is your local scene

You're not wrong in any of that... but it is harder to do in practice, than in theory.

The TO DID try to find a format which would help... and cooked up a Highlander with BAO, franken-mess of rules and restrictions. All being equal it would have worked. Powergamer A. figured out "Dedicated Transports" would still be legal, and unlimited, and proceeded to buy up the stores entire Wave-Serpent stock. Considering they just dropped $300 at the FLGS... what are the odds said TO decided to ban that douche-move? Exactly. :-p

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

You're not wrong in any of that... but it is harder to do in practice, than in theory.

The TO DID try to find a format which would help... and cooked up a Highlander with BAO, franken-mess of rules and restrictions. All being equal it would have worked. Powergamer A. figured out "Dedicated Transports" would still be legal, and unlimited, and proceeded to buy up the stores entire Wave-Serpent stock. Considering they just dropped $300 at the FLGS... what are the odds said TO decided to ban that douche-move? Exactly. :-p

"Oh, by the way, did I forget to mention, Serpent Shield firing range is 24"? Wow, what a nice paint job you did on those Wave Serpents!"

But c'mon, if you're gonna put house rules to control PITA lists, what is the #1 whined about unit in the whole freakin' game?

Just let him have his day in the sun for one tournament, and if it annoys everyone too much, house rule it for the next. Then maybe he'll buy Knights, and do the same thing. Eventually, he'll get the idea that this crowd doesn't like him every much. But the hobby shop sure will!

 Paradigm wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wrong. He's saying don't play the first list you can download, he's saying make up your own combinations. Its not about cutting off discussion, itsvabout encouraging players to grow by using " bad" units or unusual strategies.

But why should you keep reinventing the wheel by making the same bad choices that other people have already tried and rejected? I don't understand this praise for being stubborn and ignoring good advice just because you didn't invent it yourself. Part of being a good competitive player is using all of your resources, and that includes the testing work other people have done.

What I don't get about this situation is that one of the biggest gripes with 40k as it stands is the lack of balance, and yet the most common suggestion whenever anyone is looking for tactics is to push people towards exploiting that same imbalance. When you have the same hypothetical person saying 'Serpent Spam is OP and makes the game no fun' in a General Discussion thread, and then going over to Army Lists to tell someone to fit more Serpents into their list. I just don't get how this disconnect can exist whereby the same people are both bemoaning imbalance and exploiting it. Surely a better attitude would be to try and move away from that, to think outside the box as the OP suggests, and not reward the imbalance by exploiting it to the full?

I think the difference here is this. One can decry imbalance, but impart the wisdom in taking advantage of that imbalance while it exists if asked in regards to competition.

As an outsider looking in, I agree with Peregrine. The issue is that you are purposely reducing your chance of having a fair game and winning by not using a netlist. There is no good reason why someone would do that in a tournament environment. There's no moral high ground of "Well, you tabled me turn 2 but you were using a netlist and I came up with my own list. Nyah!" it's you lost because you took a poor army against a good one.

Does it suck that someone's collection can be worthless? Absolutely, but that's GW's fault for a complete lack of balance and handwaving everything with that "forge the narrative" bullcrap. Besides, there's a huge gulf between fluffy and competitive, sometimes a fluffy list can also be uber-competitive - see Wave Serpents or Jetbike eldar.

It's indicative of the current mindset around the game that people need to deliberately gimp themselves and restrict things that are in the rules, yet continually ignore the fact that it's a flaw of the rules that allow these things in the first place to happen. It's nobody's fault but GW and the designers if the game is so terribly balanced that you buy a unit and it turns out to be complete gak on the table and your opponent buys a unit that turns out to be awesomely great. It's bad enough that TOs need to fix the game rules that are so terribly broken that it can't be played correctly without house rules.

The fact there's even talk about deliberately hampering oneself in a game between two people is mind boggling.

 Talys wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

As someone said earlier... a real problem happens competitively when 99% of players agree not to netlist, but a few bad-apples put winning above sportsmanship and everything else.

Looking at the Internet to learn what units are better and what groups of units provide synnergy shouldn't be a bad word. I mean, we do it for every other game, right? At the end of the day, using someone else's well-thought list may provide an edge, but does not compensate for a lack of experience and skill, though.

I think that everyone who is serious about 40k should look at netlists, learn their strengths, play them, play against them, and so forth. As has been stated, they aren't unbeatable, as they fare relatively poorly in the truly competitive scene; they are just easier to play. This is no different than a TCG, where netlists provide crappy players with a leg up to be competitive with mediocre players, but do nothing to elevate mediocre players to top-tier, where strategy, experience, and creativity win out. Winning in a truly competitive environment requires an understanding of the current meta, and both a list and strategies to be successful.

Gaming (whether TCG or Tabletop warfare) is less fun when people want to skip real strategy and creativity in lieu of a shortcut.

But, whatever. In your group:

The real "problem" that you're describing is that you want to have a semi-competitive event between 23 people who claim that they just want to play for fun (but for some, winning is still important), and 2 powergamers who don't mind saying they want to win and are willing to be more aggressive to do so.

You therefore have a few options if you want to keep it light and fluffy:

1. Have a conversation with the powergamers and tell them this isn't the spirit of your semi-competitive tournament.
2. Disinvite the powergamers. Maybe they don't fit.
3. Break the netlists by implementing house rules (for instance, the invisibility nerf). As the TO, make it clear to anyone that if they bring an exploitative list, they're wasting their money on models, because it will be nerfed.
4. Tell people that if they don't like your rules, there's the door.

Events are not a democracy. Gamers can be jerks, and so can TO's. Make it unattractive for the powergamers, and they will be disappointed, bitch, and move on. And guess what? If enough people hate your tyranical rule, they will all go play somewhere else and you will be left with nobody to play with. If everyone ACTUALLY wants to use best-unit lists, and either just doesn't know enough to, or doesn't own the models, then you just have to recognize that this is your local scene

I don't think you've played a TCG ONCE if you think that more creativity helps. It doesn't. There's a reason Magic has to do set rotation and Yugioh always has 2-3 decks that are viable while you ignore the rest.