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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

Harsh little bit?

I've won or nearly won several MtG tournaments in the first 2.5 years of the game, when I was very much into the game (and ultra competitive). Most recently, I've been a pretty big Hearthstone fan and ranked Legendary many seasons, and top 100 a couple of times. I now prefer computer TCGs because they allow me to play at unusual hours and for his short times; plus the matchmaking is very good.

Great players can win against mediocre players using crappier decks. This is a fact. It's not just what you have and what you draw, it's also when and how you play your cards. In a competitive scene, it's also understanding the current meta. It's also knowing your opponent's deck (or guessing what's left) and being prepared to deal with their potential threats. Winning a tournament isn't just a tointoss of who gets a better draw (though of course, luck matters).

 Talys wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

Harsh little bit?

I've won or nearly won several MtG tournaments in the first 2.5 years of the game, when I was very much into the game (and ultra competitive). Most recently, I've been a pretty big Hearthstone fan and ranked Legendary many seasons, and top 100 a couple of times. I now prefer computer TCGs because they allow me to play at unusual hours and for his short times; plus the matchmaking is very good.

Great players can win against mediocre players using crappier decks. This is a fact. It's not just what you have and what you draw, it's also when and how you play your cards. In a competitive scene, it's also understanding the current meta. It's also knowing your opponent's deck (or guessing what's left) and being prepared to deal with their potential threats. Winning a tournament isn't just a tointoss of who gets a better draw (though of course, luck matters).

Except it IS basically a cointoss. You have less control over what you get in a TCG hand compared to a 40k army. You have to find ways to eliminate those bad odds and the best decks have the best ways to do that. Pretending otherwise is silly on your part, and if you actually think that's harsh then so be it. Better players are going to have an edge on someone mediocre, but if the better player is using a mediocre deck, the mediocre player is going to have the win overall because the better deck has better consistency with its draws and power plays. THAT is a fact.

I'm pretty sure the gist of the Thread is that while Net lists are strong at a local level, they make poor tournament lists because higher end tournament players already know how to counter Net lists with their own list and play style, which I agree with. Winning at tournaments has little to do with having the right list, and more to do with having the right tools in your list to compliment your style and goals. Or in other words, it's the player that wins or loses, not their toys.

SJ

@Slayer - if you think TCGs are a coin toss, you shouldn't play them (unless you like cointosses, anyhow).

Speaking of my current TCG, Hearthstone, the top players drive the meta; they don't chase it. Practically none of them use a netlist, except that some publish their lists and then those lists become netlists (but their own list evolves). If you watch strams of top players who explain their thought processes, you will see that they quite accurately guess what cards their opponents are likely to have left, and how much potential damage is in their hand, whether to eat damage or play cards, and so on. It's really quite strategic, and a single card can make a big difference.

Likewise, in 40k, there are clearly bad units that you only play for the sake of using the model (just like there are mountains of pointless MtG cards that are inferior). However, my point is that being creative and strategic will win over the guy who just advances wave serpents or plays a centstar.

Feel free to disagree. I didn't think that your disagreement was harsh, I thought your "you've never played a TCG" was, as that does not characterize me, and many skilled TCG players would be offended by being characterized as playing a fame that was just a netlist and coin toss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
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.

Well, I don't think it's so mind boggling that people handicap. It happens in every game, from golf to chess.

While I think that 40k would be a better game if t were better balanced, there are factors that unit balance does not account for. First, and most obviously, not everyone has access to every model. Second, not everyone is equal skilled. Most importantly, not everyone has the same priorities.

Wanting to win is one thing; wanting to win every game is another. Not every win is equally satisfying: if you know you're going to destroy he other guy 10 tines out of 10, what's the point? It might not be because his army is weak, it might just be because he or she isn't that great a player. Would it not then be more enjoyable to create some challenge?

Much in the same way that in a PC game you raise the difficulty by artificially handicapping yourself and making the enemy units stronger, unfairly.

My wife and I were walking around looking at various armies and your "Dorothy" made us chuckle quite a bit. The Yellow brick road... the ruby slippers... pure comedy man.

You were right. You weren't in Kansas anymore!

Nicely done man.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the gist of the Thread is that while Net lists are strong at a local level, they make poor tournament lists because higher end tournament players already know how to counter Net lists with their own list and play style, which I agree with. Winning at tournaments has little to do with having the right list, and more to do with having the right tools in your list to compliment your style and goals. Or in other words, it's the player that wins or loses, not their toys.

SJ

Lets not underestimate some other factors however, in that hardcounters to certain power builds are much more likely to be seen, and powerbuilds are likely to get matched up with each other quite often, knocking each other out. Matchups and turn order can make all the difference in the world.

On another note, the LVO is also not the end-all-be-all of 40k competitive gaming that it's being made out to be in some cases. It's got a fair number of house rules and force restrictions that is different from other events, and different from "by-the-book" 40k. It's also something where *everyone* going has sunk a ton of time and money into building, painting, and testing those armies (on top of travel), and often include units you just won't see in 90% of other places or events simply due to either most players being unable to devote those same resources (e.g. FW Cobras).

 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.

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I definitely knew ahead of time what I was getting into as I posted on here, BoLS, and on Frontline, so I knew that there'd be detractors and was hoping to learn how to edit future posts based off of the feedback I got on this initial article. I could've been a lot more clear on my stance since I apparently come off as very polarized on this subject. I have no qualms with net discussion, nor do I have issues with the identification of superior units. It is my belief that the opinion that TAC lists are dead is just another fallacy waiting to be proved wrong and by teaching yourself and others to think your way through bad matchups and the inclusion of those perceived bad units, it'll make you a more well rounded player in the long run. Yes, it may be that sometimes it is ideal to spam some units, but in doing so, you limit your tactical flexibility when dealt with a bad matchup in the form of army list, mission type, a better player across the table from you, or all three. I'd have gone much deeper in to how we can become a better community, both online and in our local areas, but I thought it better to save it for another post since this one was already pretty long winded on it's own. Thanks again for the shout out, it certainly gives me some steam to get the others cranked out as well. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
While some may see my advice as a poor way to help new/mediocre players win, I think of it in a very different way. Are you really doing that player any favors by telling them to play so one dimensionally? Say that player takes your advice, buys serpent spam, and wins a few local store RTTs. Does that player now think they have improved or are they leaning on what is currently the flavor of the week? I personally don't believe that winning is everything, especially in 40k. I learn more from mistakes and losses than I ever do when everything works out according to plan. Now back to my hypothetical story and that new player. The tables have turned and either the locals have figured out a formula to beat him or the Eldar dex gets an update and his list is no longer winning him games. Where does he go now? Does he return to the forums and find the next big thing and go buy it? What happens the next time this happens and how will he know how long his investment will be worth it before it happens again? Eventually he finds that he has spent way too much on this hobby than he initially intended to do and he's stuck in a meta where his collection isn't perceived as the best thing since sliced bread. This is the kind of cycle that has worn down many of our peers and resulted in their leaving of our hobby. Instead of following the meta like sheep, do your part in changing yourself and the community and this hobby will be healthy for years to come.

 Talys wrote:
@Slayer - if you think TCGs are a coin toss, you shouldn't play them (unless you like cointosses, anyhow).

Speaking of my current TCG, Hearthstone, the top players drive the meta; they don't chase it. Practically none of them use a netlist, except that some publish their lists and then those lists become netlists (but their own list evolves). If you watch strams of top players who explain their thought processes, you will see that they quite accurately guess what cards their opponents are likely to have left, and how much potential damage is in their hand, whether to eat damage or play cards, and so on. It's really quite strategic, and a single card can make a big difference.

Likewise, in 40k, there are clearly bad units that you only play for the sake of using the model (just like there are mountains of pointless MtG cards that are inferior). However, my point is that being creative and strategic will win over the guy who just advances wave serpents or plays a centstar.

Feel free to disagree. I didn't think that your disagreement was harsh, I thought your "you've never played a TCG" was, as that does not characterize me, and many skilled TCG players would be offended by being characterized as playing a fame that was just a netlist and coin toss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
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.

Well, I don't think it's so mind boggling that people handicap. It happens in every game, from golf to chess.

While I think that 40k would be a better game if t were better balanced, there are factors that unit balance does not account for. First, and most obviously, not everyone has access to every model. Second, not everyone is equal skilled. Most importantly, not everyone has the same priorities.

Wanting to win is one thing; wanting to win every game is another. Not every win is equally satisfying: if you know you're going to destroy he other guy 10 tines out of 10, what's the point? It might not be because his army is weak, it might just be because he or she isn't that great a player. Would it not then be more enjoyable to create some challenge?

Much in the same way that in a PC game you raise the difficulty by artificially handicapping yourself and making the enemy units stronger, unfairly.

Well I'm still awaiting impressive results with those Warp Talons, Rubrics, Vespid, Tactical Terminators, Howling Banshees, and Pyrovores then. OH, WAIT...

Some units don't get used for a reason. Pretending that it's because of a lack of skill shows amateur thinking on your part, while you try to think of yourself as the "superior" tactician for thinking outside the box. That doesn't win tournaments though. I do, honestly, believe that some of those lists only topped because of sheer luck on their end. That Scout list was terrible, and would NEVER have survived my locals, even with the minor Centurion-star.
Same thing with #Lictorshame. Lictors are still terrible, but it's a pretty minor investment to make the Mawlocs a lot better, which were the real star of the list outside the Flyrants, of course.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well I'm still awaiting impressive results with those Warp Talons, Rubrics, Vespid, Tactical Terminators, Howling Banshees, and Pyrovores then. OH, WAIT...

Some units don't get used for a reason. Pretending that it's because of a lack of skill shows amateur thinking on your part, while you try to think of yourself as the "superior" tactician for thinking outside the box. That doesn't win tournaments though. I do, honestly, believe that some of those lists only topped because of sheer luck on their end. That Scout list was terrible, and would NEVER have survived my locals, even with the minor Centurion-star.
Same thing with #Lictorshame. Lictors are still terrible, but it's a pretty minor investment to make the Mawlocs a lot better, which were the real star of the list outside the Flyrants, of course.

For sure there are bad units. However, there are also bad players (lots of them) who do fine with netlists against other bad players, and even mediocre players who may have a weak list. However, my point is simply that a clever wargamer who is experienced and creative can surprise this sort of player or trick them into losing games. I've done it and seen it many times. In this sense, TCGs and 40k are similar.

In addition, using a netlist (with no meaningful changes) means that an experienced opponent has not only played the list many times, but has already planned on how to deal with its threats. There are no surprises, nothing unexpected. Even a weak unit that has an unexpected function or synergy may buy you 1 turn, all you need to accumulate 1 more victory point.

In this way, 40k and TCGs are also similar.

This doesn't mean that there are plainly useless units in both.

Some units don't get used for a reason. Pretending that it's because of a lack of skill shows amateur thinking on your part, while you try to think of yourself as the "superior" tactician for thinking outside the box. That doesn't win tournaments though. I do, honestly, believe that some of those lists only topped because of sheer luck on their end. That Scout list was terrible, and would NEVER have survived my locals, even with the minor Centurion-star.
Same thing with #Lictorshame. Lictors are still terrible, but it's a pretty minor investment to make the Mawlocs a lot better, which were the real star of the list outside the Flyrants, of course.

Let me know the next time you or someone from your local meta are at a major event or on the East Coast. I'll arrange and host a game between you and one of the "terrible" players/lists that you claim. I'll livestream it as well, so viewers at home can watch the carnage.

So much passive aggressive trolling in this thread - shock! High post count is basically 2+++ armor against moderation here.

OP: I enjoyed your posts, would read more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I do, honestly, believe that some of those lists only topped because of sheer luck on their end. That Scout list was terrible, and would NEVER have survived my locals, even with the minor Centurion-star.
Same thing with #Lictorshame. Lictors are still terrible, but it's a pretty minor investment to make the Mawlocs a lot better, which were the real star of the list outside the Flyrants, of course.

It's ok if you're not bright enough to see how those lists succeeded, but you don't have to broadcast it to the world.

As for "sheer luck" being a thing, you do realize over 200 people played in the event right? Bad list concepts, even when piloted by good players, don't get to the finals when facing that large of a field. If it was some small 8 man tourney at the FLGS, you could bray on all you wanted about luck and terrible units...

Add in the fact that this is the 2nd major tournament Sean has won with his Lictorshame list(s), and well...maybe you should just give the guy his due.

 Voidwraith wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I do, honestly, believe that some of those lists only topped because of sheer luck on their end. That Scout list was terrible, and would NEVER have survived my locals, even with the minor Centurion-star.
Same thing with #Lictorshame. Lictors are still terrible, but it's a pretty minor investment to make the Mawlocs a lot better, which were the real star of the list outside the Flyrants, of course.

It's ok if you're not bright enough to see how those lists succeeded, but you don't have to broadcast it to the world.

As for "sheer luck" being a thing, you do realize over 200 people played in the event right? Bad list concepts, even when piloted by good players, don't get to the finals when facing that large of a field. If it was some small 8 man tourney at the FLGS, you could bray on all you wanted about luck and terrible units...

Add in the fact that this is the 2nd major tournament Sean has won with his Lictorshame list(s), and well...maybe you should just give the guy his due.

Can you actually give me a rundown on the Lictor list? The 3 Flyrants are obvious, but why are the Lictors there? I don't see their purpose

 jreilly89 wrote:

Can you actually give me a rundown on the Lictor list? The 3 Flyrants are obvious, but why are the Lictors there? I don't see their purpose

I am unfamilliar with the list, but this is a perfect example of what I mean by creativity and surprise. You see the list or army, and you're not sure what to expect. That surprise makes a huge difference -- versus showing up with a list that might be fantastic, but both the strategies and counters are well-known, because *everyone* who is competitive has encountered those same popular lists.

Now, I'm not trying to say that all original lists are good, and all net lists are bad. Just that a list with a novel idea, if it's a good one, will give the player a short term edge.

But that is not realy a suprise. If you know that there is no invisibility and maelstorm is part of the rules. Then lictors are ok, because you can start with them on objectives with infiltrate scoring you missions turn 1 onward.

I remember a tournament in 5th, where there were desert rules added. Not a single army in top 8 had a vehicle in it other then a pod. Which was awesome for people that had 4th ed armies, but super bad for all those who had 5th ed ones.

I can imagine even the worse units suddenly being awesome. Playing on an oil field where any flamer weapon causes explosins. Add pods+old style pre faq pyrovors and one could explode the opposing army turn 1.

Real night fight where sudden flash blinds people for longer then one turn and suddenly minimax units of talons are "good".

Give me a Wamahordes style tournament. 3 lists that have to be different and you can't play the same ones back to back , remove ally and suddenly IG will be the best army ever.
The thing is though, the fact that one can write a scenario or rule set to buff or nerf a unit or set up, does not mean that there aren't pre set armies that work better for those specific scenarios and that somehow skill and knowing your army will help you against just as skilled or better skilled opponents.

To use your heartstone example. Just because someone has a lot skills, won't help him and his basic deck much, if he is playing my handlock deck.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Can you actually give me a rundown on the Lictor list? The 3 Flyrants are obvious, but why are the Lictors there? I don't see their purpose

Check out this link...it has both lists in the championship, as well as a brief blurb about each list (not too in depth)

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/40k-unbeatable-lists-lvo-edition.html

As for Sean's opponents during the tournament, here's the rundown (from OrdoSean himself)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 1: Eldar/Dark Eldar - Spiritseer, archon(webway shadowfield, agonizer), 5 dscythe wraithguard, 4 waveserpents, 3 units of dire avengers, 2 wraithknights

Round 2: TSHIFT winner eldar/tau: 4 Wave serpents, mantle jet seer, 4 dire avengers, 2 solo hornets, tau fireblade cadre (2 units of broadsides, riptide), void shield generator

Round 3: blood angels and imperial fists: same list as in the final, cents, 4 units of scouts, centurians, mephiston, librarian, lysander

Round 4: Orks and necrons: 2 weirdboys, warboss with luckystick, 15 boys in a battlewagon, 3 meganobs in truck, 3 mega nobz in truck, 10 boys in truck, mega blasta artillery, canoptex formation (wraiths, scarbs, spyder), gretchin, summoned demons.

Round 5: Jy2 and his Pentyrants: 5 flyrants, 3 lictors, 2 rippers, mawloc, void shield

Round 6: Demons/Tyranids: fateweaver, 2 tzeentch heralds, 2 units of 7 screamers, 11 horrors, 3 nurglings, 3 Flyrants, 3 mucolids

and then demons, eldar, scouts again in the finals. I lost round 3 to Nicks scouts and then we met again in the final round.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to actually watch the Twitch Live Streams of the last few rounds of the event (where both lists are prominent), here's the link to that: (looks like you'll want to click the 9+ hour long recording and skip around to find the game of your choosing)

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/profile/past_broadcasts

As for the why and how of the units in Sean's list, I'd suggest watching the games. Nothing I can say here will turn you into a believer...

So the idea of net listing is you copy an army that won a large event or has done well. An example I use is ovessastar

My buddy built it, we play tested it, then 2 of my friends took it to nova 2013 and wrecked shop because no one knew how to fight it. So afterwards, people started testing for it and copied it. It kept doing well but , lost the advantage of surprise and in the hands of an average player it was pretty beatable. It never won a major event again.

When you net list, it means you are behind the meta, not ahead of it. It's much harder to win a large event from this position. Especially now when there are so many strong lists and combos out there.

Now there's nothing wrong with net listing, I used to copy my friends lists all the time, but I'd much rather be ahead of the meta, then behind it,

I took a bland one source eldar list to lvo and came within one dice roll of 6-0 ,I knew my list inside and out , got lucky by avoiding my single auto loss matchup and played around a host of other weak matchups.

The secret to winning is pick a faction and stick with it for a least a year. With allies and sources, you will be able to constantly evolve your army based on whatever gt packet you are playing.

I agree with jeffersonian000 yet again.

It's basically this:

On the tactics forums people discuss mostly X beating up on Y. Essentially who's killier or sturdier or some such thing.

For the most part, these analysis are done in a sand box or with routine book rules.

For tournaments - it starts to get wierd. It's no longer in the sand box. It's got it's own rules for winning and it's not always about who's killiest.

Depending on the format, it may favor somethings vs others. If you don't tailor it for that specific tournament, then your netlist will fail and horribly so.

For example - if you have the IG leafblower list from back in 5th when you didn't have to move much, it was king.
Boom drops 6th and 7th, now we have to be mobile and capture objectives that will likely be all over the place and that gunline is now invalid and is crappy.

Maybe your tournament plays with a heck alot of terrain (I've seen it before on top tables being a little too decorative) and then you suddenly favor ignore terrain/drop pod/ fast assault armies cause big models might not fit in close enough to objectives (that someone can more cleverly place)

Maybe there are only a few objectives, then maybe a big foot blob will be favored as you can't be budged. Lots of little ones all over the place? Fast / scout/ infiltrative/ deep strike units will be king. (hey, even vespids at least reliably move 12' + run a turn at least lol) Maybe it's all killpoints? Just build deathstars and super MC's. It's all the flavors that get tweaked based on the tournament style.

It's why like we've been saying, practice for the format. It's not always whos killiest. And to those that say that you may not have any units left at the end of the game if your stuff just dies... uh, no. some formats favor you getting objectives eariler and the faster you draw cards, the more points you can pile in. Also no guarantee that if you go after a unit, that objective will still be worth anything next turns. It's actually pretty hard to table someone that is decently good and especially if they know how to hide LOS or split units well. You might be capt smash face deathstar unit but you can't be everywhere at once and a split deployment will be tough to deal with since you only have 5-6 turns and I might have literally 30 units of MSU (depending on the format)

You have to really practice the format a few times and change up your list as needed to fit the occasion. That's why netlisting will only get you so far since most tournaments don't have the same rules / table set up/ terrain set up/ or how they modified malestrom or powers. It's why you can certainly start with a netlist, but if you truely want to be competitive, you'll find that your list often morphs cause you can't meet the specific tournament criteria. (for the even more experienced groups, this even factors into turn timers. Some formats have set time for turns and some have set time for the game. This actually matters alot as you may not get all of your turn with a horde list and also may hurt your summoning lists unless you are a very good accountant. Heck, one guy I tried to play daemon factory against, he took at least 45min to 1hr per his turn just moving models, counting powers, and writing down which daemonic gifts are on who along with of course thinking on what he actually wanted to do. He got better over time but it's an exhausing list to play for something like a 6 round tourney in one day.)