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.

Is metagaming an important issue in competitive WH40K ? I used to play a lot of competitive M:TG a few years back, and metagaming was more important than how you actually played. I was wondering if it was as important in WH40K.

So, knowing that many, many people play Space Marine or their chaotic counterparts, is it pertinent for a tourney army that's trying to be competitive to metagame its list ?

I know that packing some marine killing ap3 goodness is usually a good idea, but the real question here is : knowing that
1. most players will do exaclty this
2. the guns that are ap3 are usually low rate of fire weapons
Is it pertinent to go around this composition strategy by building a list that takes advantage of this "metagame" and, for example, play a space marine army with no 3+ space marines in it ?

What do you think ?

And, if there is indeed a metagame in WH40K, what is expected to come up in tournaments beside space marines ?

There is a metagame in 40k, just the evolution is way slower then in MtG, since painting an army takes quite a while.

Like you said, Marines are most common. Besides that often the newer Codices get played more oftenly. Nids for example.

In theory one could play a horde army since most people will load up on anti-marine weapons with rather few shots. In practice this approach takes tons of time to prepare the army and often too much time to play the army efficiently given the timelimits of tourneys.

Going all 2+ saves with a Lysander Wing style army works, but unfortunately many of the weapons used to deal with 3+ saves have AP2 anyways.



To beat the metagame at the moment I would play Iron Warriors. Simply because they are the most shooty 3+ save army available (thus forcing anyone to play by their rules) and get very efficient close combat counterassault too.

But I dont. The reason is that you cant just slap together a force and play some games, then try something new, like in MtG. Therefore many people have the Metagame in mind, but actually play an army where they like the models and background etc.

Posted By kradhoso on 11/13/2006 6:06 AM
Is metagaming an important issue in competitive WH40K ? I used to play a lot of competitive M:TG a few years back, and metagaming was more important than how you actually played. I was wondering if it was as important in WH40K.

So, knowing that many, many people play Space Marine or their chaotic counterparts, is it pertinent for a tourney army that's trying to be competitive to metagame its list ?

I know that packing some marine killing ap3 goodness is usually a good idea, but the real question here is : knowing that
1. most players will do exaclty this
2. the guns that are ap3 are usually low rate of fire weapons
Is it pertinent to go around this composition strategy by building a list that takes advantage of this "metagame" and, for example, play a space marine army with no 3+ space marines in it ?

What do you think ?

And, if there is indeed a metagame in WH40K, what is expected to come up in tournaments beside space marines ?

I too played alot of competitive MtG until recently. There is a sort of metagame but how you play is more important. Its like giving a affinty deck to someone with no knowledge of how the sac works. The difference is that an army matches the playing style of individual.
The mechanics and variables are far greater in games such as 40K than it is for MTG which has a very strict ruleset ( A ruleset so tight that the majority of games won in competitions are from the knowledge of the rules).

So comparing the two in the mindset of a MtG player as far as metagame goes is a little incorrect. The metagame for 40K uses the most rules abuses and loopholes possible.

It is however, not acceptable to construct the most evil list possible as is currently the acceptable and expected strategy for MtG. You just wont find many players if you do. It is also alot harder to accomplish as there is nothing that equates to skullclamp, wasteland, black lotus in 40K. These are cards that affect the game in broken ways as it breaks many of the fundamental rules for its resolution system. A necron monolith comes to mind here, but the necron army as a whole has many weaknesses such as phase out that balances this to some degree.

Everyone has the same access to models and rules unlike MtG where only the rich can have access to all the cards. You also cannot mix and match whatever units you would like to form your army as you can do to form your deck. There are some pretty major differences in the two games when comparing the metagame obviously.

I think that the Warhammer 40k Metagame is a combination of competitive list builds, surprise, and the players involved.

Despite what some people say, playing Warhammer 40K competitvely makes 40k a very nuanced game, I will explain in my three concepts:

Competitve List Build - this is probably the most important one. The first mistake a person can make is reading their codex and seeing nothing but good. If you consider the downside to not only any unit you want to field but your codex in general gives you an idea of how to minimize your disadvantages. Also realizing and planning how each unit works with the other and supporting each other gives you an idea on how you build your list. 70% of the metagame is your Army List and the Strategy you have around it.

Surprise - essentially when you opponent has no idea what he is facing, or worst off downplaying your list as "easily beatable". Case in point, in my area, a lot of our most competitve players are down playing the streagth of the Nidzilla list. Now that we have two players starting this army, the tone may be different once they hit tournaments. But this concept also applies to on-line discussions about armies. For the longest time, even after the new Marine codex, the Ultramauleens (Mauleed's shooty Marine Army) was considered in the top percentile of competitve 40K lists. It wasn't until somebody played Mauleed with an all Drop Pod army that Mauleed was singing a different toon. However one the proliferation of certain lists have players start to learn how to deal with those lists than the field sifts again. Drop Pods are still a competitve list, but most people are now building their own list to deal with them, so the "surprise" has worn off a bit.

Players involved - it's easy to beat a newbie but you face off against a veteran with the same lists, you are in for a fight.

So what it comes down to, for me, is that I play balanced but still competitve lists. I get more out of it in the long run because, as each of these "super lists" comes out, I am figuring ways to counter it with only minor adjustments to my list if any, and I think there is where the true meta-game lies.

While I agree that there is less metagaming in 40K than in MtG, I definitely metagame.

For me that means tooling my army list to the expected competition. In RTT's, I build my list to be anti-marine first then I tune it to the armies that dominate the local scene. This is so much harder than in MtG because of the structure of tourneys. In MtG you are going to play far more games in a tourney and, to win, you are going to have to face the strongest deck-types in doing so. In 40K, with only 3 games in a regular RTT, you can win all 3 of your games and still avoid the strongest player/build at the RTT.

I also play in a couple of leagues. This is where metagaming shines. I know who my opponent is going to be and what army he is going to play, I just build accordingly. The trick to this is to play a very versatile codex. I play Chaos (Black Legion).

Altering your list constantly is great for keeping interest in the game, as static lists become boring after a few months. I believe metagaming is a healthy part of Warhammer, but rarely used. People in my area rarely alter their own lists because they only like a few of the units in their codex, call lists that they cannot beat cheesy instead of looking at their own flaws, and seem genuinely content to play out the same game every week. As mentioned by Darrian13 leagues really encourage metagaming, which benifits the local store, and ultimately the players in the store. I've seen a player run off and spend over $200 getting every AP4 model he could to tackle his opponent's army - seems like store organizers should encourage league and metagame play.

People should metagame against marines, if only to make the situation so bleak for them that new players start a different army.

Actually the metagame is the only thing that makes marines remotely balanced vs non-MEq armies.  If most people played horde armies that were tooled to fight other horde armies then marines would absolutely slaughter them.

Hey Kradhoso,

Of course Metagaming works in 40k, but the line of thought you are suggesting has some flaws. You suggest to take either a high modelcount scoutmarine army or a Terminator army.

The scout army has a mayor problem in that the 60% marine armies out there have excellent high RoF AP4 weaponry which is frequently used. The assaultcannon and the heavy bolter feature on a regular basis in any good Marine list. Scouts are, because of this and other problems, not a good option.

The Terminators have a problem in that most Anti MEq weaponry features AP2 allready, so much of there benefit is negated while you limit your modelcount using a lot of Terminators.

Metagaming is however how I chose my army and tournament list. I figured that most good marine lists are relatively weak on countercharge/assault. All those 6 man Las/Plas squads and 6 man 3 HeavyBolters squads have little in the way of a close combat threat. And the sporadic Terminator and Assault Marine squads arent enough to make the entire army suddenly good in the assault phase. I chose a Daemonbomb list because of this. It was either join in the arms race for more and more firepower in 1500 points, or exploit the thing that gets weaker in opponents lists in the arms race for long range firepower: Close Combat prowess. 

My choise was Metagame based, and allready the opposite reaction begins to crystalise. In News and Rumours at this moment is the list of UK GT winning armies, and according to Lone Pilgrim the Keyword to a Tournament winning army was mobility. How do you counter a good Daemonbomb? Mobility (preferably in skimmers).

So of to the drawing board it is. Maybe I'll start a Godzilla list (mobile firepower and good vs those skimmer armies)...

Cilithan out...

I am already preparing for the new metagame that is arriveing in my area. Skimmer based armies seem to be the new norm. Tornadoes, Falcons, Wave Serpents, and Hammer Heads just seem to be popping up more and more. I am tooling up my Nightlords with auto cannons and tank hunter because of this. Zillas have not made a showing in my local area (thank goodness) and marines are of course the majority(donkey cannons anyone).

I have a whole bunch of black legion. Awesome Assault with an amazing shooting base was the name of my game. A little ordinance for fluff and I would hack and burn my way to victory. I played my friends most of the time oks, marines and necrons. The orks were the easiest dealt with if I didnt get to overzealous and then the necrons. The marine player was the hardest. Most of our fights now are down to who gets the better rolls.

I would be a liar if I said I didnt take all that knowledge and built toward killing MEqs since horde armies would just die to my bolters anyway. Most people here read other codexes to see what works where. Metagaming, to my understanding anyway, is to take information that you would not normally be privy to and applying it in the game. Remember the first time you shot at the coolest looking unit and not the most danagerous? "Ah crap, I didnt think that guy could summon daemons!" or "AHHH That monolith is terrifying! pump all shots into it!"

Posted By the_trooper on 11/13/2006 2:03 PM
Remember the first time you shot at the coolest looking unit and not the most danagerous? "Ah crap, I didnt think that guy could summon daemons!" or "AHHH That monolith is terrifying! pump all shots into it!"

Yes.

Jerk.

One of the best things I've ever done was read through a ton of codex's when I was stuck in a hotel on business. I was stuck in situations where I was left with nothing to do and so I read and came up with armies from codex's I didn't play to see what would and wouldn't work.

I also learned a lot about what units are awesome and what aren't from Dakka, which has helped quite a bit in my games. Once you know to ignore the stealers for a turn and kill the damn Zoanthropes in a Nid list (no other Carnifex's for anti-tank), the game was over when they died.

That's not exactly the metagame that I think people are talking about, but you should never underestimate having knowledge of the other armies in the game. You will know what to kill and how.

That is doubly true if you play Marines; which is kind of sad in a way.

The matagame is DakkaDakka . . . get used to it.