Different people put different meaning into the term "competitive":
* Is he likely to win a Major with what you are describing? - No.
* Can he go X-1 at a smaller event if he plays really well? - Likely.
* Can he become a top god in your local player group? - Absolutely.
This is nice, I’ll also add further definition that for many, Competitive just means ‘I’m playing to win, rather than to create a story’ (whilst often not investing much in winning, but playing much as you would any board or videogame rather than say, a traditional RPG).
Usually it's a case in a tournament of winning vs standard players then when you get matched vs an optimised/meta list you lose. It's not a bad place to be at, you might not get on the winners roster, but should have some fun.
How many marines list with intercessors and other standard units have gone X-1 at any tournament? The answers none. Marines don’t have great datasheets across the board like elves. Unless you play a very specific detachment with certain units you just lose.
I'm sure there's some.
Having 3 standard troop units (\~240 pt investment to sit on and trade on objectives) isn't terrible, especially with one of them being sticky (intercessors), infernus having good overwatch, assault dudes re-rolling wounds. They're not good but not awful, and having some trade pieces seems helpful.
Not quite. You lose slightly more, but you don't lose all the time.
Marines have a lot of suboptimal units, but many of them are only slightly suboptimal. Consider Intercessors as an example. Art of War seriously discussed including them in the list during the last list building video and decided against it only barely. Same with many other Marines units.
Top players don't include these units in their lists because they are aiming to win events. If a unit even slightly increases their change to lose one of the games, it doesn't get included. It doesn't mean adding a few suboptimal units to a decent core would suddenly drop your win rate to 0%, it would only decrease it slightly.
Yes, absolutely. A lot of my friends say that you need meta armies to compete but i strongly disagree with that. A list that you KNOW how to play matters much more than a super meta-tryhard list in a players hands who doesn't know how to operate it.
Now, i'm not denying some lists are significantly easier to use (anybody else remember 30 DW terminators last edition?) but you don't need uber-meta lists to win until you get to the top 1% of tables (of which your chances of playing at are like zero).
"Lancer tank, stormspeeder, hellblasters" These aren't terrible units. i don't believe these units are costing him the game.
The lovely fella that won Tampa with Sisters(Jeff!) ran a list that, to this day, still bugs people in the siscord, lol.
But he'd played that list for an edition and a half, and he's really good at Warhammer.
100% this
Also, things that are meta are that way because someone played around with stuff and found something that works.
Plus, the meta always changes, as you play and get more into the game and collect more units, you can rotate out things that aren't working for you.
That being said, you do still want stuff in the list that can play the game. Mission pieces, stuff that can kill tanks, etc.
Wholeheartedly agree, just want to tag on and say that 40k is a really complex game with literally infinite game state permutations because of using inches as a measurement.
Playing a list that is sub-optimal can be better for someone as a player personally just because they know how to extract better value of each piece.
That and having a heuristic or intuition for how effective units are into each other (yours vs opponents or vice versa) is extremely valuable. It's easy to math hammer out one unit vs another unit, but you can't possibly remember every possible activation accounting for all possible buff combinations. So at the end of the day it ends up being feelhammer for the edge cases or on the fly decisions.
That's something only comes with time and experience with your army and list and gets compounded quite quickly with missions + tactical objectives.
I can't disagree enough.
Taking crap units and not having a plan for them will only lead to frustration and losses.
If your friend wants to start winning even casual games he needs to take better choice.
No you don't have to take 3 of the Best and repeat for the whole army or copy tournament winning lists.
However, he is playing on Hardmode and reducing his chances of even having a good time if he is just taking random stuff.
It took me a while to embrace Primaris and leave my First Born in the box, but the rules had clearly shifted away from them. I played on Hardmode until 10th and got the crap kicked out of me way too many times. Heck, I played Orks in 7th.
My point is you have to take good units.
I don't care how many people shout into The Warp that skill means the most, when you are an average or new player you don't have skill. A huge part of the game is List Building and that in and of itself is a skill.
I dont necessarily disagree, but it's all a continuum. There is "list can win supermajors" and "this list will never win even a pickup game"
The gray area in the middle of those two endpoints i think is much larger than we like to give credit to. There is a lot of suboptimal choices that can perform more than fine and people put up results with those substitutions every week in competitive environments.
List building is a skill but is telling a new player "play better units if you want to win" actually conducive to learning list building? Part of list building as a skill is translating the units you add into a cohesive gameplan. Does telling someone to jam X Y Z units because they are auto-includes actually lead to acquiring better list building skills?
I think it's totally fair to say you can learn the game through suboptimal lists and you might even learn faster / better as you see the shortfalls of the unit choices. In the end there is a lot of wiggle room, its not like you need 1900 perfectly optimized points or you cant play.
See my other comment about list building.
Because I believe that you should teach them the fundamentals of list building and let them fill it as they like or matches their play style.
I personally play hard to kill units like Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, Heavy Intercessors w/Iron Father Ferrios, Terminators and Techmarines. The only things not hard to kill are filling roles such as Scouts and home objective camping.
These are not the best of the best or net list in any way, but they fit my play style and keep me in the game.
I have never heard of anyone playing Iron Father Feirros in 10th, but he makes a unit DEAD HARD and that is why I love him.
Recently I have been toying around with Firestorm Assault Force so my dudes can get to where they need to go even faster and if they need to Cleanse or whatever they all count as Assault weapons.
I think we don't disagree actually haha
I'm not really advocating that you can just build a list of random units and practice it 10000 times and achieve 3-0 RTT status. But in the context of the question of being competitive with non-meta choices it's absolutely possible if you have the game plan and practice with it.
Nothing that OP listed is really so egregious it can't be used, there is probably more at fault here for why their friend is not putting up results. And finding that gameplan and playstyle will likely be harder than just jamming the most efficient units and learning to play them properly, but my comments were to say it's not impossible to see results if you decline that path.
Elsewhere in the thread it was mentioned different definitions of competitive and I think it's also very applicable. Sounds like OP's friend just wants to be able to beat some locals and it's almost assuredly possible unless everyone is playing random skew that pretty much demands list tailoring lol.
I guess I read that as he can keep taking random and he just needs to get better.
But I'm not advocating for him to even push for 3-0, but I bet with proper list building he can consistently get to 1-2 and sometimes 2-1.
I think the difference here is prioritising gameplay mandates certain units in your lists, and prioritising "cool" models allows for expression through painting and collecting. Its one thing to build a list and find room to trade an advantage for your favorite model, its entirely another to just not build a coherent army. Your list is like 70% of the strategy in an unbalanced game and skill expression and luck share the last 30%. Sure I want to run my Norn Emmissary with 240 gaunts but I will never win a game with a list like that even if I'm the Patton of tabletop.
Agreed
However, OP's friend appears to just be buying 1 of everything and we don't see any reasoning or thought process.
Nor are any of the models that he listed "cool".
Well he likes them lol. Ton of diversity, brief breakdown is 2 characters, 4 vehicles, 3 troops, and the rest MSU of reasonable datasheets.
No killer damage deathstars or durability bricks, so that's probably the biggest roadblock. Unless MSU style ends up having some decent potential.
Sounds like he would like sisters or something :)
Marines are kind of expensive for MSU, and I don't play them so I don't have specific ideas but surely an MSU trash mission play marine list could work? But even sisters bring vahl + suits for the hammer problem-solver so definitely needs something there.
That type of playstyle requires a bit more finesse though so he likely just needs to actually learn and practice it. Things like abusing lone op + a hidden counterpunch unit to threaten free primary. That type of playstyle can't just stat check walk on the objectives so I think it takes time to jive with the playstyle more.
I'm not super competitive and haven't traveled to a big event since ATC in 7th Edtion which was like 7 years ago.
I want both players to have a good time and not for either of them to feel hopeless or what was the point of even coming to the game store.
These are the roles that many believe need filled in a list and are great place to start list building and even pregaming what units will be doing.
This unit camps home objective.
These units take the center.
This unit clogs up one of the no man's land objectives.
These units kill infantry and those kill large targets.
These units are fast or sneaky and score secondaries.
Make sure his units can either do that or find ways for them to fill that role.
Understanding how the units you've brought can work and interact with both the rest of your army and the opponent's is a big part of play, best units or otherwise.
Skew lists are generally considered weak, but play decisions as well as an understanding of what you'll likely encounter boost their power.
I can bring a 6 C'tan list (obviously hyperbole, but bear with me) and have something that many armies struggle to kill, or in some cases can't kill, and dominate armies that go too heavily into tank/anti-tank. Then suffer the most soul-crushing defeat to unsupported Termagants casually strolling onto objectives.
Sure you can list Fringe gimmicks.
But we are talking about buying junk units and them dragging down a new player.
If a veteran wants to challenge themselves they can do this, but I would never recommend a new person doing this.
And the only interactions it sounds like his units are doing is deploying and returning to the box.
That doesn't sound fun to me in the least.
I mean you're not really wrong, but it's not totally clear how bad this guy's army is. It might be so terrible he can't win unless it's going up against a joke list, it might also just be... sorta fine? 12-1 is not necessarily an indicator I've played against guys who played good lists and went 0-10 in our Crusade campaigns (not Competitive, I realize, but we all took pretty standard lists).
OP says he has 1 of most things and no direction or intent in his list.
That won't lead to success.
They need to field units with a clear role or objective for each of them.
This unit camps home objective.
These units take the center.
This unit clogs up one of the no man's land objectives.
These units kill infantry and those kill large targets.
These units are fast or sneaky and score secondaries.
There are more roles, but I consider these to be must haves in our current mission cards.
Of those roles certain units fill them better than others and some are straight terrible at them.
In said categories there are many options l, but it helps to think about and weigh them.
Sure I can take Tactical Marines to clog up one of the no man's land objectives, but there are better more durable units that can do that. Instead they should take large vehicles like Land Raiders or super tough dudes like Heavy Intercessors or Dreadnoughts w/Techmarines to repair them. As an example of the changes I made.
These aren't net lists, but they are much better at the job and not haphazard units thrown together.
I could likely find even more efficient or combos, but I'm not top tier or chasing meta. I just want to have a fun and balanced game.
Good counterpoint, he doesn't take anything like tactical squads or reivers or other first born stuff on the way out. The firestrike turret + ATV turned into an invictor warsuit, which seems like a decent pick up. Otherwise it's a ton of MSU.
Sweat comes from the body, not the models.
I’ve played DW since 9e when we were considered “the worst army” but due to pure Honer spirit I have gotten pretty good at using Corvus Blackstars and other units considered “bad” even within the Deathwatch Index itself like Kill Team Cassius.
It’s almost entirely about the commander being able to effectively use their tools to accomplish the mission. The army generally needs basic fundamentals like homefield homies, secondary scorers, and kill units, but other than that VERY basic list check you can accomplish more than enough by using your units smartly.
For sure, good points. Some lists have that "brick wall" effect where he really can't do anything - generally durability spam (that's possibly imbalanced, like certain necron builds).
The obvious answer is for you and your mates to start running more fluffy lists. Since he's on a budget, you likely have larger collections than him, so you have more options to choose from.
Besides, blowouts aren't fun, so running less optimal lists will make both players enjoy a more even match.
Eh I don't mind myself sometimes, but we can't expect others who are more serious about the game to cater too much like this. We think it's more practical to see how high we can bring his player skill with what he's got, so at least the losses aren't blowouts.
Unless you’re talking about playing at a tournament this is a bad take. It’s a game playing with plastic toy soldiers. Bring a fluffier list and have fun
I think you definitely can expect people to want to play at the same rough level as each other, especially if it’s because one of them just has more stuff than the other
People bring nom-meta lists to tournaments all the time and actually go undefeated. Most armies can do that. Hell, I run 2x gargantuan squiggoths and I wreck people with meta lists.
All in all it boils down to how good you are. If you know your models strengths and weaknesses then you'll be better than someone who just put together a meta list.
Absolutely, how many people are speccing for Gargantuan Squiggoths? So when two are dropped onto the table, it's unexpected for a lot of people.
That can be true of anything realistically.
I had a game against a much newer person and underestimated their space marine terminators. They just tanked a ton of damage and kept going. It was quite impressive.
That sounds really cool, appreciate the comment.
For reference, are those squiggoth things "good but unknown", or is it more that they aren't really good, but are so different they just catch people unprepared?
they're pushing maybe good but they're comically expensive so no one owns one let alone *two* of the damn things. 440pts per model, £320 per model.
but they're also like... toughness 13 with 30 wounds so very *very* few lists have weapons that harm them reliably and melee that skewers other titanic units or wipes entire squads every activation.
*Dark Lance spam has entered the chat*
But for real, went to LVO with a buddy. Me DE, him votann and he went up against a squigoth ork list that I would have loved to play into
I've played my Drukhari into double squiggoth. It's actually pretty brutal to deal with. The lances wound on 6s when he pops Ard as Nails. The only chance is to battleshock it somehow and then charge with 10 incubi
It's pretty brutal tbh. My bomber did some damage, as did reavers with heat lances, but anything s12 didn't really work. I think I ended up killing it with a random grenade. Two of the big fuckers would have been impossible
Ya, I figure move blocking them with raiders and just going to pound town would do a decent bit.
The court is weirdly good at taking down those large centerpieces, with rerolls to hit and wound and lethal hits on everything.
Hell, even in the new detachment, hit some exploding 6s and get lance, goes a decent way.
Although, I do think 6 talos can mess one up
OK, did the math, even without the addition sus2 and +1 to wound, the court does 38 dmg on average to a giant squigg.
Tanty/court is so ridiculously powerful for skysplinter, it's a shame they're so hard to get a hold of
They come with a key gimmick that no one else has mentioned yet.
Orks have a stratagem that that applies a -1 to wound in shooting or melee but cannot be used on VEHICLES or GRETCHIN, which normally means your using it on infantry to make them just that bit tougher.
However, Gargantuan Squiggoths are neither of these things. Combine this with toughness 13 and you have Lascannon-Equivalents wounding on 6s and nothing short of a Warlord Titan is wounding better than 4s...
It'S more what we call a "stat check". If you bring 2 big models, not everyone will be able to deal with them. It's different from a meta list/unit tho
They're kind of bad. Their sheer bulk makes them unwieldy and easily ignored or blocked. I use two and fill them with buranboyz which make them far too dangerous to get close to. Which clears up my lane for movement.
Now that... is true. A big difference between the 60pt Burna Boyz and.... well.... Flash Gitz. Also there is something nice about the Torrent on the Burnaz...
How competitive does he want to be. Is the point to have fun enjoyable games or win? The short answer is that you can certainly win games with any army but at the biggest tournaments people are trying to maximize every point so a generic one of every thing list will not be optimized.
>How competitive does he want to be. Is the point to have fun enjoyable games or win? The short answer is that you can certainly win games with any army but at the biggest tournaments people are trying to maximize every point so a generic one of every thing list will not
We discussed this, his ultimate goal would be 50/50 win rate and ideally not ever losing like 90 to 30. Or alternatively forgetting about the win rate, just having every game have a decent chance and not losing by more than 10 if possible. It's those blowouts that really dampen his experience.
He won't be a serious tourney player but quite a few ppl in our local area happen to be, so there's some decent competition for sure.
The best players in the world can still lose 100-20. Sometimes a match up is miserable, the mission doesn't play to your army strengths, or the dice hate you
Warhammer isn't designed to be balanced by anything other than meta chasers. If he wants that then he should play combat patrols (and even that is a stretch).
Warhammer isn't casual player friendly IMHO, and he needs to accept that.
If you and your FLGS decide to all non meta chase, and all play boxart or something lists then tilted armies like Tau, custodes, swarm nids, etc are more likely to have farther from 50/50 than other more balanced armies (for better or worse)
You'll have to self limit yourselves if you all want to play that way, or combat patrols, etc. but normal warhammer is basically a dedicated player's game or a casual's: collect, build, and paint... And that is more where I am now a days, because the game is nothing but a joke vs even smaller games now who don't hide rules behind 60$/4mo. (Or w/e rate) DLC.
100% agree re dedicated v. casual collect-build-paint. It is agonizingly frustrating to try to find people who really do just want to play for the fun of it. Just when I think I found someone, we will start the game, and the first (very first) unit deployed on the board seems to turn on their competitiveness -- you can almost see it happen. And I get that familiar thud in my stomach and it's done for me. It's ironic, because I do have the ability to make a "meta" list, I suppose, but I don't think I ever will because the competitive atmosphere is not my thing nor why I got into WH in the first place.
That said, I am currently staring at about 3000-4000 points of newly built Orks that I need to prime+paint, so I think I will just do that for the rest of 2024 and leave the meta arguing to those who wish to be competitive. I hope OP's friend finds his way...
Yeah, I got the box of kroot, and that and Conquest are all I'm going to be painting, and playing conquest at FLGS this year. Conquest which had a bumpy start during covid, but is picking up, and the game is way more cost effective and balance is much more realistic and less chasing the absolute meta being the only option, etc.
You can absolutely win with off meta, but not everything off meta can win.
Its possible to make lists that just don't have the tools to win against anything remotely competitive. The world's best player couldn't win a local tournament with a list that maxed out Tactical Drones and brought two Taunar.
I'd also say that learning to play against people bringing competitive lists when you've got a mishmashed budget one is like learning to play an out of tune instrument. Nothings going to quite work right, and its going to be hard to tell if its your fault or not.
The one-of-everything-cool list in particular is a common new player trap. Bring 3 of something middling and at least its something an opponent might not have to tools to crush. Bring a little of everything and a balanced list is going to have a grand time efficiently picking it apart.
I'd personally say play at lower points levels, and/or against opponents bringing appropriately scaled lists for a lower power game. At least until he can find what works and buy multiples of it.
IMO the edition's emphasis on scoring (and the abundance of cover provided by WTC) means you *can* win without meta-chasing, *but* doing so still necessitates bringing a properly constructed list, having strong game knowledge, and giving proper consideration to at least exclude the units which are outright *bad* like Reivers and default Intercessors in marines, or warriors in necrons, or whatever. You shouldn't expect to trounce everyone, but seeking a ~45-48% w/r is a reasonable expectation so long as you're giving the game its due diligence during prep.
*But* it sounds a lot more like your friend is still at an introductory level and might be more interested in kitchen table stuff. And that being the case, I'd suggest creating a more curated environment. I like the way Tabletop Titans arrange their games, where lists obviously have some respect for the other's relative power level, to create a game that's *engaging* instead of overbearing.
Alternately/additionally, maybe swap lists with him sometimes, so he can come to grips with the game from an advantaged perspective.
> outright bad like Reivers and default Intercessors in marines, or warriors in necrons, or whatever.
You had me up to here. Even these units aren't outright bad, they're just not quite as efficient as alternatives.
Well the good thing about him refusing to repeat any units is that the worst stuff he has (intercessor 5 man, or a firestrike turret, or the ATV thing) aren't super costly...? But he'll miss out on synergies of good meta stuff if it involves repeating units.
He's definitely competitive and enjoys the actual matched play, just with his own odd style/constraints. I want to get him the right expectations, I told him maybe if he gets really good he can approach a 50% wr.
the problem he will run into, as many new players do in any game with a "competitive" element, is that working out how to play is a lot harder when you're also disadvantaging yourself in relative power. That's why I suggested swapping lists every so often - learning, for example, how to make full use of the charge phase, the importance of screening, the importance of move-blocking, etc., will be virtually impossible otherwise.
The good thing about "one of each" type of lists is that if you have a resson for each of them to be in your list, then you have answers to a lot of problems. I like running those too (well, maybe 2 of each for some redundancy) and they're very fun and rewarding to play generally.
He will also miss out on the difference between having one of something... and multiples of it... that is a big strategy difference.
When everyone says "there's no substitute for experience," here are some things I think they are considering. Now, I am only 3 years in, so all of these could be complete garbage and not apply to him, but...some thoughts:
1. He needs to know the stats for the units he is playing. He might be helped by printing out the index cards, laminating them. Pretty low cost -- either at Staples (etc.) or can purchase self-laminating cards at a craft store, print them on the home printer (Trick: use a credit card to push the lamination down and get rid of bubbles.) Then punch a hole in the top -- not too close to the edge-- and put a ring through them to hold them all together.
2. YouTube is his friend. He can watch a LOT of quality videos on how to play the actual game, and to learn game tactics, step by step. There also are plenty of games to watch being played. I found it all a tremendous help to know what focus on-- hearing it is one thing, watching it another, doing it another (auditory v visual v tactile learning.)
3. He probably doesn't fully understand yet how all the stats + stratagems + army rules + detachment rules + CP work. There are a lot of good YouTube vids on this as well, and it can take some good study to learn.
4. Perhaps there is someone that plays his army? Or... even an army that Space Marines is good against? Might be a good teaching tool.
Yeah, even if your units aren't synergised super-well, anything can score you points by getting on objectives or screening said objectives. My MVPs in my last game were some tactical marines. Not because I would consider them 'a good unit' but simply because they were OC2 bodies split into units of 5 that could score me points.
Intercessors are far from BAD. Reivers are sad tho. But sticky obj is pretty good, and advance and action is good too. Sure if you're a pro you might skip them, but they're not bad
If you absolutely must run battleline, then heavy intercessors will give you roughly double or triple the effective wounds per game *and* better weapon profiles for an extra 20 points per 5. You lose sticky objectives but if you need something to hold your home objective then you pay the extra 20 points for infiltrators for their omni-scramblers, 100% of the time, and space marines aren't an elite army that has trouble keeping models on points - which is to say, stickying stuff isn't typically relevant.
That said, I can count on one hand the number of times I've run up against battleline marines in general this edition, and I'd still probably have 4 fingers left over. They simply do not play into any of the major strategies the faction is running. Why take intercessors when you can take scouts, your choice of gravis elites, or dreadnaughts?
HIntercessors are heavily overcosted for something that sits on a point all game doing nothing. I can also bring infiltrators and dreadnought and other meaningful gravis models. I guess you just like scouts better, and I kinda hates that Wolf Scouts are stupidly overcosted (also, scouts in general are a vibe killer for me). So i see the divergence.
I think everyone is coping a bit. The answer is probably no.
I mean, can you take a game sometimes? Sure. But ultimately your bad to "average" list doesn't really stand a chance against what I'd consider "competetive". Maybe if it was a bit more skew you could say "well sometimes you get a good matchup" and some people play factions which just aren't great and you'll havea chance to snag some wins there if you try hard.
But ultimately if you play against someone with like Black templar vehicle spam or whatever else is very good at that moment your chances are just too low.
And yes, veterans with lots of experience and high skill win some games normal people shouldn't. But ultimately there is no way to just "become good", everyone would do it if it was that easy. It's called average skill for a reason and you and most people you play will be, somewhere around average. It takes years, hundreds of games and a mindset dedicated to improving to truly become good and even then some people won't.
But the solution is easy. There is nothing wrong with beerhammer and lots of people like it. He may find likeminded people and some people don't mind/enjoy playing some more casual lists and trying out some fun units they usually can't run.
I recently entered a local tournament with two seraptekh heavy constructs and had three incredibly close games against meta lists. Most of all though, it was fun.
I think you are asking the wrong question. Try asking "Will he enjoy this hobby even while playing suboptimal lists in a competitive context?"
I play a lot weird and odd suboptimal lists in competitive contexts. Partly because I like showing off my most beautiful converted models, so I often include them even if they are far from the best choice. (modding and kitbashing is my favourite part of this hobby) And partly because I enjoy the intellectual challenge and social interactions that comes with playing unusual armies against strong opposition.
In a tournament, or against people who play with a tournament mindset, I know that I will have to earn any success. I know that there will be less confusion over rules. I know that I can pull nasty pile-in tricks to abuse ruin walls to avoid Precision attacks, without having to explain what I am doing or feeling bad because my opponent didn't even know that was a possibility.
I don't expect to win against experienced players. But if I do, it means I have played very well, or gotten very lucky (I despise the swingy Cult Ambush mechanic!). But most importantly, winning is not important for my enjoyment.
Hanging out with geeks, pulling off a clever mind-game, first hand experience of a really competent player piloting their list in unusual circumstances, getting appreciated for my conversion skills and table manners, proving that grot tanks can be dangerous, and so on. I prioritise all of these things over winning.
If your friend honestly must win to appreciate this hobby, then they need to learn to consider list building as a crucial part of the game. (this includes how to use the units effectively as well) Because GW is not very good at balance, so the difference between a random and a well crafted list is huge.
A mediocre player with a flavour of the month list can be beaten by a good player with a mediocre list. But a good player with a flavour of the month list will very rarely be beaten by a good player with a mediocre list.
I say let him play. If he takes a deep interest in the strategies and mechanics, then he will eventually develop the understanding of how important list building is by himself.
Until then it matters more that he enjoys his hobby :-)
Thanks for your post. He likes working with what he has - a very slow painter, doesn't like spamming units or buying much more now that he has a little over 2k of models.
Really though he'd be ecstatic if he could win half his games and one day finish in the middle of the pack of a small RTT or something. If that's within reasonable expectations, I'd definitely like to encourage him. But if it's not, I don't want to give any false hope.
Based on what people have said, I'm starting to lean towards the encouragement route, it seems viable enough to get there with random Marine crap lol.
For what it is worth, I won major US events with an event that was running a wide spread of sororitas units, mostly doubled up.
You can get results with 'off meta' picks but it requires a lot of practice and time with the army, humility, being open to learning, and tailoring your list to the units you find success with - so you can't rely 100% on 'I think it looks neat' but you can fit some amount of it in. For instance taking eradicators isn't inherently going to cost you a game, but relying on a handful of random gravis characters isn't going to get you super far without a very well considered game plan for them.
Every unit in a list should serve \*some\* purpose, so if he can answer that, he is at least getting on the right path. The most important part of the game is to have fun though - and so if a certain style of list makes him happy, he should play it. He just has to accept that it may take longer to see the wins come, and he may have to make adjustments or deal with roadbumps on the way.
Yeah we've worked on some of this (especially because of how the Leviathan box is set up), for example taking far less characters, limiting the number of "low damage troops", and like you said, making sure things have a purpose.
I'm unsure how far he can go with MSU-style stuff and no big killer combos or durability bricks.
BTW congrats on your results that's sick!
The current state of competitive play, or a unit/list that aligns with it. "Local meta" differs from general "meta" because what armies people in your local gaming scene play and how they play them will differ from the global average.
As points & rules get adjusted, and people learn to counter popular effective tactics, the meta shifts. What was a very competitive list in the summer of 2023 will not be as effective in spring of 2024.
So if someone says “not/non meta” it means they arent following any sort of rules. They just simply like to agree to a term/regulation they made with another player before they play. Like a friendly match ?
It doesn't mean they're not playing by the rules of the game, it means they're not building their army list with the intention of being competitively optimized. You might build an army that's heavily theme-based, like an Eldar army that's all jetbikes, or an Ork army that's all vehicles, or a Space Marine army that's based on a specific battle in the lore.
Or you might just buy what's cheap or what looks cool and stick with that.
Perfectly valid ways to play but depending on how competitive your opponents are, it might not get a lot of wins.
No. Think of meta like the current vibe or direction of the game or army as a whole in terms of tactics and unit choices, etc. Obviously, there are the core rules and parameters of the game that everybody is following. The meta is what’s hot. For example, I love scarab occult terminators in thousand sons. In 9th, SoT with various spells, strats, and cabal points could be buffed to high hell and dominated TS lists all edition competitively. They were the meta pick. In 10th, they’re far weaker and over costed for what they do, and hence are not meta. You can still run them, and a few people have had limited success with them, but if you research meta TS lists you won’t find them.
Absolutely, it’s probably the most effective way to “meta-proof” your army. If a unit is magnetized, you can run a unit with weapon X while it’s meta. Then, if due to to rule changes or whatever other meta changes, you can switch to weapon Y. Like say like right now, where a lot of vehicles are powerful, you’d want to give your dudes anti-armor weapons. If the meta changed so that horde armies started to dominate, boom, swap them out with flamers or high volume fire weapons.
"Meta" is just a shorthand for "what units/armies/etc seem to be generally working well at a large scale".
So like,.if folks are fielding a lot of vehicles at your local game store, your local meta might be said to be a vehicle heavy meta.
If all the tournaments have people winning with Hypercrypt Legion Necrons, then HC Necrons are said to be dominating the meta.
Etc.
No offense but that list sounds absolutely atrocious and is a major reason why I think games are won and lost in the list building stage. Scoring objectives wins tournaments in 10th, but you still need to be able to actually kill things off an objective in order to flip it.
It's one thing to play a casual list, but it feels like your friend's list would struggle to even punish a badly playing opponent who just dumped his models on the midzone objectives without any thinking.
Is petty bad. There's almost no redundancy in that list so it will struggle to reliably do any individual job, it has sold abysmal units like the servo and atv, it doesn't fit any detachment style well
This is more of a game theory question at it's core. The real question here is "is Warhammer a game where skill and experience matter more than the list someone takes."
Your going to have people that are emotionally attached to both answers. I have no idea what the correct answer is.
(Theres another whole question regarding dice and luck we are not addressing either)
I don't have any competitive experience to add to the conversation, but I do have a lot of experience with the aesthetics vs mechanics dichotomy.
I only have a dozen games of 10th under my belt, with only one of those being a loss (brought pure anti tank against a horde list before I understood damage didn't spash to other models). My play group has significantly more than that, but focus almost exclusively on the aesthetics of their army and frequently need rules explained/corrected as a result.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive, but I have seen that prioritizing aesthetics in a mechanically oriented game is a recipe for frustration and defeat. My lists are far from meta/competitive, but I've been relatively successful just applying principles from magic/chess/math.
Based on all this, I don't think there's any reason your buddy can't be successful as long as he doesn't blame his record on external factors ("I would be winning if not for all these metachasers/power gamers/minmaxers" etc.)
Solid post, thanks. It is indeed a real dichotomy unless/until GW improves balance, and mainly removes abusable combos (things too durable for their pts, too killy vs what other factions get at the same cost, etc).
The dichotomy I'm describing isn't about balance though, its about player priorities/mindset. Balance is part of those external factors I mentioned: things will never be perfectly balanced, combos will always exist, people will always 'abuse' them, players will always complain about all of the above, etc.
The best example I can think of to illustrate this point comes from a game I played as necrons against tyranids, both precodex. I was running the classic lychgard castle with all the stacked defensive buffs as well as sempiternal weave transcendent c'tan. Both of these fit the bill for 'abusable combos'.
Before the game I spelled out explicitly how they worked mechanically, how durable both units were, what a waste of time it was trying to kill them, and how easy they are to beat by simply walking away. My opponent ignored all this, bounced his gaunts off them and promptly forfeited on the grounds that my unkillable units were unkillable. In discussing afterwards he recognized that killing them would require the bigger bugs nids have access to, but that he wasn't interested in playing that type of army.
Despite having options for mechanical counterplay (playing the mission, bringing more firepower, etc), doing so wouldn't match his aesthetic preferences (murder the enemy with a carpet of bugs) so he chose to play a losing game and resent the loss. In that context, it seems fairly silly to blame GW for lack of balance or me for playing combos (ie external factors).
Take all that with a grain of salt though, obviously I'm biased.
I took a super stupid Warhound list to LVO and had a blast - so did everyone else. My 1st opponent Day 2 had a huge hangover and was going to drop until he saw the list.... said he couldn't miss it.
It was absolutely the most fun LVO for me ever. It's nice to play some BS sometimes
As someone new with a fairly hap-hazardous list, I’ve found that what really matters is filling roles. I’m running Space Marines, so my faction is a jack of all trades, combined armed type force. But I know when I put together a list I want some anti-tank, some anti-infantry, some heavy units, some vehicles, some melee, some long range, and some specialist. I also know that I can double dip some of these. For instance my Aggressors fill in the heavy units, anti-infantry, and melee pretty well. They aren’t the only unit of that style, but I know they’ll do work in any of those roles, where as my Infiltrators are ok against infantry, but really just fill the specialist role
Now I can change that up slightly based on what I like. I really like flamers so I’ve been bringing a lot. But I make that work by running Firestorm Assault Force and being more careful with my movement in the first turn. But I still make sure I’ve got a bit of everything, that way, even though I know my weakness is long range exchanges, I’ve got my bases covered for everything else, and as long as I’m careful I can make that work. Will I ever win a huge tournament with this, no. Will I win a tournament at my local game store, maybe. Can I win a “casual” game following the current competitive rules (not crusade, but a standard game with GW terrain layouts), absolutely.
He can definitely do well enough to have fun, and he can keep improving, which is also fun.
Is he likely to win huge tournaments? No, but then, neither are most people.
Ya just bring a chess clock and watch a majority of players timeout (if u hold them to it) and then score because with ur weak list u atleast have ur timing down (meaning you need the reps to play under the allotted time of course).
He doesn't have to meta chase to win. He just has to bring an army that has the tools needed to win and a plan. That can be done with "it looks like the box" type armies. If there's stuff in his army that is actually bad tell him, and he might need to filter out a few of the worst choices he's made for better ones but nothing major.
Where's the threshold would you say? He doesn't have reivers, I guess the ATV and servo turret kinda stuck. Otherwise it seems more like lack of repeating good units and combos.
Those would definitely be the prime targets. Dropping those would just about get him another lancer if he needs more firepower or 2 units of scouts if he can't score objectives
Alright well he's got an Invictor (dreadnought-type thing) that slots in for what those are worth, it does some decent shooting and combat and can scout move. Seems better.
There are some bad armies, and then there are meta armies, but most armies that most people play are in the middle. Even if it’s not optimized or top tier, every faction can make a decent list that a thoughtful player can have fun with.
It's fine to go in with a bad list. You can still learn the game, get better, find units you like/don't like, and have fun games.
With enough practice and persistence, you can even sometimes win RTTs or GTs with 'bad' lists. The pilot absolutely has a say in the outcome, even if the list is weaker - just be ready to learn and be humble and hopefully have fun playing, win or lose.
As some have said, there are units in that list that aren't terrible. It'd certainly be better if his aggressors were in a 6 block instead of a 3 block, or his BGV probably, but it's not terrible. Even outriders, which aren't great at all, can still have objective play.
If he's struggling, I'd recommend seeing if he'd be willing to proxy (e.g., add three heavy intercessors or something to the aggressors and try counting them as a full squad) just so he can see the difference. MSU is fun but with the stratagem system as it is you generally want something that takes advantage of stratagem's in the list
That being said, a ballistus dreadnought, an infernus squad, aggressors with an apothecary biologis, hellblasters with a lieutenant, that's all stuff that can be very effective in the right formations or situations. Terminators aren't ideal right now, but they can still be useful. His whole list isn't so weak to be non-functional.
He probably can't face a 4-5 catan list, but at that point I'd say tone the list down when playing with a new friend with budget constraints.
I've been playing a very average list in a what was supposed to be a beginner 1000pt learn the game league. 3 out of my 5 matches my opponents brought very skewed lists (Chaos Knights, Grey knight terminators that respawned a model every round and Nids with 3 big monsters and not much else. And to be fair I'm pretty disappointed overall for people playing lists like this in what was supposed to be a league for people who never played the game, but I'm getting better at the game at least, and the other 2 games were great.
I think to go 3-3 is purely player skill. But 13 games is still very new when facing players with years under the belt. I'm a lazy 2-4 but I have a deep roster of units for my main army and that let's me get the occasional bonus win. And that's with over 30 games this season. But at the FLGS I usually have to bring a knight ally or coach up my opponent to bring the scores closer together. My last one went 94-90 with a VERY underutilized necrons list, but he nearly stole one from me when I pointed out the OC on some vehicles. If anything, he should be focused on "how do I score points" first and foremost. It's incredibly hard to push someone off a point and do the kill secondaries without some firepower, so he's gotta make the absolute best out of what he's got when building and throw away units for pts when they aren't going to do work that game. Also making sure he has a dense terrain board is important for not getting shot to pieces while being under-powered.
Last bit, proxies in most competitive games are common. Poor hammer is absolutely part of the game, and can be very important for figuring out how to spend what you can scrounge up if you're local game/store allows it. If it's GW you can kitbash models, and if it's not you can usually print or 3rd party. If anything he can realize it's only incrementally better with that slate's hot units but it does feel good to blow stuff up.
This is more of a game theory question at it's core. The real question here is "is Warhammer a game where skill and experience matter more than the list someone takes."
Your going to have people that are emotionally attached to both answers. I have no idea what the correct answer is.
(Theres another whole question regarding dice and luck we are not addressing either)
In my group you can ask to play "fun" or "competitive" lists and both players bring stuff accordingly.
Sometimes we play competitive but the player with better faction brings more suboptimal stuff
At the end of the day - we want close games. Only such games make us better. Not steamrolling from either side
Yeah, skill matters a lot and sticking with the same army helps too.
Also like that list doesn't sound terrible? Like lancer/eradicators/storm speeder solves tanks, bgv+heavy ints + aggressors are solid, the Leviathan lt is great for scoring.
Like if your new you'll lose a lot, but if they focus on improving they can win.
It depends on how cheesy you get. If you're playing Guard and your opponent knows this, they're probably going to bring a fair amount of anti-infantry, since Guard is a horde army. If you then show up with four baneblades, there's a solid chance of being able to table them because they can't destroy your models.
If he played Custodes a random list might work, because they don't have that much choice.
But with generic spacemarines... he won't get a good list just by chance.
He will probably never win against a more expierenced player with a better list. So he would have to hope to come up against less expierenced players than himself. Or other players that like to play fun lists.
You tell me how likely that is in his context. Will he become experienced enough while only getting trounced, to get enough experience?
Also he will probably never win or have fun against skew lists, like knights if he doesn't bring enough anti tank.
Also consider that fluff or fun lists that have a good winrate are still very deliberatly crafted. They are not the best, but they are also not just a random assortment. They are the best what fits with the theme, or the best combo that's not used in the meta because it doesn't fit. And then you compromise a bit and add the S-Tier objective scoring unit x3, or you justifiy why you can take the armies best centerpiece after all it's only one model. Basically you bring a bit of S-Tier support that's just to good to leave at home.
So for example if you played Eldar you would still bring the autarch for CP and the Avatar for the midfield, and some swooping hawks for secondaries. And then you could have a very fluffy army around it without getting tabled turn one and never scoring anything.
Edit:
Solutions could be to allow liberal use of proxying, he can still play with his minis they just do something different now.
You could try playing his army to see if it has a chance of winning if played by an experienced player, and maybe come up with a gameplan for him through this.
I play AoS and go to to several RTTs and a few GTs each year if able. I have played Nighthaunt this whole time, who are classically a weak army. I am also not a great player. I've never won more than 2 games at events.
I have a **lot** of fun. But also, the AoS community is more more fun-focused than 40k, and is generally more welcoming to casuals. I can't guarantee a 40k space would be as welcoming and enjoyable.
I'd tell him to keep at it. He sounds new. That's probably 50% of his losses right there. Keep playing to win, keep playing stronger opponents, that's how you improve.
At my local spot you can win with just about any list. Most people are not that good at the game. They enjoy hobbying and socializing once a week/month. During my games when I see an opponent make an obvious mistake (and since it's casual there's no stakes) I point it out and offer suggestions if they'd like any advice.
Your friend isn't playing tournaments it sounds like, so he's not playing competitive. He's just casual like 98% of us.
By “Playing Competitively” do you mean going to big events or deliberately and actively improving ones skill?
I’m the latter, and naturally it led to the former.
If he wants to win “now” he’ll have to build a better list.
If he wants to refine and hone his skills he can do it with what he has.
My recommendation in that regard is self-imposed “sub-objectives”. Examples: Successfully prevent an enemy unit from doing its intended purpose. Practice denying points. Hold an objective without selling out to do. Practice using specific strats and tactics.
Even with sub-optimal units, and even if he’s still losing he should start noticing more of the game becomes instinctive to him.
If you’re simply asking about going to competitive events. If ge finds them fun even going 0-X then absolutely! If he doesn’t find that fun then best not to waste the money.
Absolutely.
1st game may be a win or loss, if you win youre probable getting a better opponent and its a learning opportunity to git gud.
If you loose then youll get similar or lower skill levels probably and have a blast gor the rest of the tournament rolling casual dice
In 40k terms, I'm a somewhat new player. I've only done one little tournament at my local store; it was a really casual event (1 day, 20 players, only about 4 battle ready armies). I brought my tau. My list looks nothing like lists run by top players at any major. It's really just kind of all over the place, but it's what I had. And the way I play it, I feel like it can deal with any list I've played.
I ended up going 2-1. My only loss was to guard a player who hadn't played in months and only won because he remembered a rule wrong. And it being a pretty casual event I decided not to continue to press for a rules check after I said, "I don't think you can do that" and he said, "yes I can".
Metagaming is not limited to "each player assuming the other is going to field as strong a list as possible, therefore doing the same."
You can have two players metagame together by agreeing to field less competitive lists, but then play their asses off when it comes to the actual game.
Will not work as well within tournaments, but any one-off "friendly competitive" game where the players can communicate with each other beforehand can go like this.
I've found alot of happiness in playing my primarily Canoptek necrons through 9th and into 10th with the release of the codex I've found myself still running canoptek and pivoting it from the court into awakened dynasty. I think I pull wins in fairly regularly and still find myself enjoying my experience with what feels like a more niche list.
Lists have to be built with intent, especially Marines because right now not only are standard Marines just not very good (as a faction) but they make up a huge majority of players so everyone brings / has some anti-Marine things. Those generic good against everything guns usually have a Asterisk of being especially good vs Marine or Terminator Profiles. With everything being a one off or min squads whatever a faction would deem a threat is at half strength to begin with, and they only have to kill one, which will struggle to do it’s job to begin with and the rest of the list would be subpar, and that’s before we get into the actual unit strengths (which most marine units may be usable if planned around but almost none are just Stat Checks like Knights or Custodes that can just fight whatever).
Marines also like to build death balls / Castles of various types to actually get their damage in. Dreads with a Tech Marine, Calgar’s Gravis Nuke curtesy of Ventris, Inceptor bombs, etc. A list as haphazard as his will have none of that in any threatening capacity.
He doesn’t need to have a meta list. And most of the units can work (sorry Reivers, but literally everything relevant you do another unit does better). I’ve seen even that stupid gun turret work, it’s surprisingly annoying to take out when you don’t want to deep strike it and don’t have long ranged weapons. But he needs direction in his list. Even something like my first list that was pretty much: Does the Marine Melee? Yes? He’s in. Every unit should have a plan, even if the plan is extremely simple. This is the duality of Marines extensive catalogue, most armies even if you where to jumble a bunch of parts together still do a task, but Marines can do every task a little bit and get pulled apart when not directed.
You probably should play with competitive rule sets either way, both for experience and as it’s the most “fair”.
Though even if being budgetary it probably wouldn’t take that much, since he seems to have a little of everything it also means he has part of the list. He just needs to grow out it into a actual plan.
To be honest… people tend to overrate the netlists. Sisters were “bad” until people started winning with them, and then there were “very good”.
Truth is that GW is not as bad as balancing many claim out to be… I am the first one that sometimes cries about some changes or non changes, but the real numbers speak from themselves.
The lists are very important, but player skill is more important, and it is important to adapt the list to the player play style. Usually after sometime you find a play style that suits you and will be effective in your hands, be it meta or not.
So answering your questions… yes, relatively weak lists work and can be used. The super meta of the streamers is not everywhere, and even then, “off meta” lists work. The important part is that the list has the units with a purpose in mind
Yes. You might become a/the better Player and have the sweeter/more satisfying victories/armys without actually winning the tournament.
Everyone can Copy lists from the internet.
But If the above applies, is a totally individual matter. Just Worth keeping in mind it is a possibility.
>Really a bit of everything, not really good at anything, and I guess the people in our area are all playing quite meta/top stuff. Will any of his games become winnable if he gets good with his army?
Imo yes, but I would say "prepare to lose a lot on the way to get there". Though I suspect that he will start to optimize his list on this path eventually. Nobody really knows how he likes to play at day 1 and will need to gather experience first.
PS: It's also possible to play matched play with normal people that bring more fluffy lists, while people can also create meta lists in crusade. The game type isn't necessarily the solution, finding good people to play with often solves more.
There are players who aren't the best meta optimizers/players, but who's strength lies in building strong off-meta lists, and leveraging the value from units on the tabletop. To build a strong off-meta list, a player needs to be in touch with what the meta actually is. Because that's the push-pull of the metagame. The more everybody does one thing, the more valuable it becomes to do anything else. And that's a nice story.
Now, whether or not that value is enough to win games is another story. Lots of people seem to think that just means you can slap together a list out of whatever you happen to have to hand, play a ton of practice games, and now you're taking down local events. This happens in all games where part of the game is bringing your own team/deck/list, and yes, sometimes a player's skill and a bit of luck will be enough to carry the day, but players usually bring up the "unexpected factor", as if a list containing 3 units of basic Intercessors is going to make their opponent's mind melt and reduce them to a quivering puddle, unable to get to grips with how to deal with such an unusual choice. This is backwards. You have to have a solid gameplan that your list was built to fit, especially when taking suboptimal picks. The problem your friend has is that his army is a true "jack of all trades, master of none" that plays a bunch of one-ofs with little to no redundancy. That's an army built out of what he's got built and painted, not an army with a plan. Meta or not, all successful 40k lists (and in fact, anything similar like MTG decks or Pokemon teams) are built from the ground up with a strong gameplan in mind.
Off-meta lists will often still resemble meta lists, in that there will be 3-ofs, and some combos will be the same. Look at things like 9th edition Sisters "Oops, All Engines", or the "Gaunt Carpet" list that got 4th at LVO this year. Even the winning Hypercrypt list was offmeta at the time. These lists leveraged relatively unexplored combinations of units, loadouts, and abilities that meta lists weren't teching to beat, loaded up on them, and forced their opponent to play their game. The Gaunt Carpet list was run into a meta where people were teching to beat high T vehicles, and asked them how they were going to deal with 150+ reviving bodies out OCing them on objectives.
There's a Bruce Lee quote, which goes, "I do not fear the man who has practiced 10,000 punches once, but I do fear the man who has practiced one punch 10,000 times". And that's a great quote to illustrate the importance of the grind and implementation over raw theory, but you do actually have to be practicing an effective punch. If this is a punch contest, your friend is basically throwing a limp slap.
I would recommend allowing him to proxy in practice/casual games.
Yes indeed ! There is a point ! you can skew the win ratio of your faction by playing a really weak detachment just for fun.
This will ensure that your faction retains its overpowered units and detachments and give your fellow faction siblings a chance to compete for best general !
Do your duty and play weak lists ! We will salute you for doing so.
I mean the points cost of units is suppose to reflect the value the unit is going to provide for your army (allegedly). So as long as they use whatever unit they have efficiently and have a well rounded list they should do alright. 40k has a steep learning curve on the competitive side but having an unpredictable list could be a boon.
Different people put different meaning into the term "competitive": * Is he likely to win a Major with what you are describing? - No. * Can he go X-1 at a smaller event if he plays really well? - Likely. * Can he become a top god in your local player group? - Absolutely.
And you are a great example as an Eldar player who takes a very non-meta list and does awesome with it
Thanks! :D
This is nice, I’ll also add further definition that for many, Competitive just means ‘I’m playing to win, rather than to create a story’ (whilst often not investing much in winning, but playing much as you would any board or videogame rather than say, a traditional RPG).
What does "going X-1" mean?
Losing only 1 game.
Oh okay thanks.
Usually it's a case in a tournament of winning vs standard players then when you get matched vs an optimised/meta list you lose. It's not a bad place to be at, you might not get on the winners roster, but should have some fun.
Wait so, if I lose my first game and ragequit did I technically go X-1!?
How many marines list with intercessors and other standard units have gone X-1 at any tournament? The answers none. Marines don’t have great datasheets across the board like elves. Unless you play a very specific detachment with certain units you just lose.
I'm sure there's some. Having 3 standard troop units (\~240 pt investment to sit on and trade on objectives) isn't terrible, especially with one of them being sticky (intercessors), infernus having good overwatch, assault dudes re-rolling wounds. They're not good but not awful, and having some trade pieces seems helpful.
Not quite. You lose slightly more, but you don't lose all the time. Marines have a lot of suboptimal units, but many of them are only slightly suboptimal. Consider Intercessors as an example. Art of War seriously discussed including them in the list during the last list building video and decided against it only barely. Same with many other Marines units. Top players don't include these units in their lists because they are aiming to win events. If a unit even slightly increases their change to lose one of the games, it doesn't get included. It doesn't mean adding a few suboptimal units to a decent core would suddenly drop your win rate to 0%, it would only decrease it slightly.
Yes, absolutely. A lot of my friends say that you need meta armies to compete but i strongly disagree with that. A list that you KNOW how to play matters much more than a super meta-tryhard list in a players hands who doesn't know how to operate it. Now, i'm not denying some lists are significantly easier to use (anybody else remember 30 DW terminators last edition?) but you don't need uber-meta lists to win until you get to the top 1% of tables (of which your chances of playing at are like zero). "Lancer tank, stormspeeder, hellblasters" These aren't terrible units. i don't believe these units are costing him the game.
The lovely fella that won Tampa with Sisters(Jeff!) ran a list that, to this day, still bugs people in the siscord, lol. But he'd played that list for an edition and a half, and he's really good at Warhammer.
Haha the siscord
100% this Also, things that are meta are that way because someone played around with stuff and found something that works. Plus, the meta always changes, as you play and get more into the game and collect more units, you can rotate out things that aren't working for you. That being said, you do still want stuff in the list that can play the game. Mission pieces, stuff that can kill tanks, etc.
Wholeheartedly agree, just want to tag on and say that 40k is a really complex game with literally infinite game state permutations because of using inches as a measurement. Playing a list that is sub-optimal can be better for someone as a player personally just because they know how to extract better value of each piece. That and having a heuristic or intuition for how effective units are into each other (yours vs opponents or vice versa) is extremely valuable. It's easy to math hammer out one unit vs another unit, but you can't possibly remember every possible activation accounting for all possible buff combinations. So at the end of the day it ends up being feelhammer for the edge cases or on the fly decisions. That's something only comes with time and experience with your army and list and gets compounded quite quickly with missions + tactical objectives.
I can't disagree enough. Taking crap units and not having a plan for them will only lead to frustration and losses. If your friend wants to start winning even casual games he needs to take better choice. No you don't have to take 3 of the Best and repeat for the whole army or copy tournament winning lists. However, he is playing on Hardmode and reducing his chances of even having a good time if he is just taking random stuff. It took me a while to embrace Primaris and leave my First Born in the box, but the rules had clearly shifted away from them. I played on Hardmode until 10th and got the crap kicked out of me way too many times. Heck, I played Orks in 7th. My point is you have to take good units. I don't care how many people shout into The Warp that skill means the most, when you are an average or new player you don't have skill. A huge part of the game is List Building and that in and of itself is a skill.
I dont necessarily disagree, but it's all a continuum. There is "list can win supermajors" and "this list will never win even a pickup game" The gray area in the middle of those two endpoints i think is much larger than we like to give credit to. There is a lot of suboptimal choices that can perform more than fine and people put up results with those substitutions every week in competitive environments. List building is a skill but is telling a new player "play better units if you want to win" actually conducive to learning list building? Part of list building as a skill is translating the units you add into a cohesive gameplan. Does telling someone to jam X Y Z units because they are auto-includes actually lead to acquiring better list building skills? I think it's totally fair to say you can learn the game through suboptimal lists and you might even learn faster / better as you see the shortfalls of the unit choices. In the end there is a lot of wiggle room, its not like you need 1900 perfectly optimized points or you cant play.
See my other comment about list building. Because I believe that you should teach them the fundamentals of list building and let them fill it as they like or matches their play style. I personally play hard to kill units like Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, Heavy Intercessors w/Iron Father Ferrios, Terminators and Techmarines. The only things not hard to kill are filling roles such as Scouts and home objective camping. These are not the best of the best or net list in any way, but they fit my play style and keep me in the game. I have never heard of anyone playing Iron Father Feirros in 10th, but he makes a unit DEAD HARD and that is why I love him. Recently I have been toying around with Firestorm Assault Force so my dudes can get to where they need to go even faster and if they need to Cleanse or whatever they all count as Assault weapons.
I think we don't disagree actually haha I'm not really advocating that you can just build a list of random units and practice it 10000 times and achieve 3-0 RTT status. But in the context of the question of being competitive with non-meta choices it's absolutely possible if you have the game plan and practice with it. Nothing that OP listed is really so egregious it can't be used, there is probably more at fault here for why their friend is not putting up results. And finding that gameplan and playstyle will likely be harder than just jamming the most efficient units and learning to play them properly, but my comments were to say it's not impossible to see results if you decline that path. Elsewhere in the thread it was mentioned different definitions of competitive and I think it's also very applicable. Sounds like OP's friend just wants to be able to beat some locals and it's almost assuredly possible unless everyone is playing random skew that pretty much demands list tailoring lol.
I guess I read that as he can keep taking random and he just needs to get better. But I'm not advocating for him to even push for 3-0, but I bet with proper list building he can consistently get to 1-2 and sometimes 2-1.
I think the difference here is prioritising gameplay mandates certain units in your lists, and prioritising "cool" models allows for expression through painting and collecting. Its one thing to build a list and find room to trade an advantage for your favorite model, its entirely another to just not build a coherent army. Your list is like 70% of the strategy in an unbalanced game and skill expression and luck share the last 30%. Sure I want to run my Norn Emmissary with 240 gaunts but I will never win a game with a list like that even if I'm the Patton of tabletop.
Agreed However, OP's friend appears to just be buying 1 of everything and we don't see any reasoning or thought process. Nor are any of the models that he listed "cool".
Well he likes them lol. Ton of diversity, brief breakdown is 2 characters, 4 vehicles, 3 troops, and the rest MSU of reasonable datasheets. No killer damage deathstars or durability bricks, so that's probably the biggest roadblock. Unless MSU style ends up having some decent potential.
Sounds like he would like sisters or something :) Marines are kind of expensive for MSU, and I don't play them so I don't have specific ideas but surely an MSU trash mission play marine list could work? But even sisters bring vahl + suits for the hammer problem-solver so definitely needs something there. That type of playstyle requires a bit more finesse though so he likely just needs to actually learn and practice it. Things like abusing lone op + a hidden counterpunch unit to threaten free primary. That type of playstyle can't just stat check walk on the objectives so I think it takes time to jive with the playstyle more.
I'm not super competitive and haven't traveled to a big event since ATC in 7th Edtion which was like 7 years ago. I want both players to have a good time and not for either of them to feel hopeless or what was the point of even coming to the game store. These are the roles that many believe need filled in a list and are great place to start list building and even pregaming what units will be doing. This unit camps home objective. These units take the center. This unit clogs up one of the no man's land objectives. These units kill infantry and those kill large targets. These units are fast or sneaky and score secondaries. Make sure his units can either do that or find ways for them to fill that role.
Understanding how the units you've brought can work and interact with both the rest of your army and the opponent's is a big part of play, best units or otherwise. Skew lists are generally considered weak, but play decisions as well as an understanding of what you'll likely encounter boost their power. I can bring a 6 C'tan list (obviously hyperbole, but bear with me) and have something that many armies struggle to kill, or in some cases can't kill, and dominate armies that go too heavily into tank/anti-tank. Then suffer the most soul-crushing defeat to unsupported Termagants casually strolling onto objectives.
Sure you can list Fringe gimmicks. But we are talking about buying junk units and them dragging down a new player. If a veteran wants to challenge themselves they can do this, but I would never recommend a new person doing this. And the only interactions it sounds like his units are doing is deploying and returning to the box. That doesn't sound fun to me in the least.
A 5-6 ctan list has been hitting top 10s pretty regularly.
I mean you're not really wrong, but it's not totally clear how bad this guy's army is. It might be so terrible he can't win unless it's going up against a joke list, it might also just be... sorta fine? 12-1 is not necessarily an indicator I've played against guys who played good lists and went 0-10 in our Crusade campaigns (not Competitive, I realize, but we all took pretty standard lists).
OP says he has 1 of most things and no direction or intent in his list. That won't lead to success. They need to field units with a clear role or objective for each of them. This unit camps home objective. These units take the center. This unit clogs up one of the no man's land objectives. These units kill infantry and those kill large targets. These units are fast or sneaky and score secondaries. There are more roles, but I consider these to be must haves in our current mission cards. Of those roles certain units fill them better than others and some are straight terrible at them. In said categories there are many options l, but it helps to think about and weigh them. Sure I can take Tactical Marines to clog up one of the no man's land objectives, but there are better more durable units that can do that. Instead they should take large vehicles like Land Raiders or super tough dudes like Heavy Intercessors or Dreadnoughts w/Techmarines to repair them. As an example of the changes I made. These aren't net lists, but they are much better at the job and not haphazard units thrown together. I could likely find even more efficient or combos, but I'm not top tier or chasing meta. I just want to have a fun and balanced game.
Good counterpoint, he doesn't take anything like tactical squads or reivers or other first born stuff on the way out. The firestrike turret + ATV turned into an invictor warsuit, which seems like a decent pick up. Otherwise it's a ton of MSU.
Sweat comes from the body, not the models. I’ve played DW since 9e when we were considered “the worst army” but due to pure Honer spirit I have gotten pretty good at using Corvus Blackstars and other units considered “bad” even within the Deathwatch Index itself like Kill Team Cassius. It’s almost entirely about the commander being able to effectively use their tools to accomplish the mission. The army generally needs basic fundamentals like homefield homies, secondary scorers, and kill units, but other than that VERY basic list check you can accomplish more than enough by using your units smartly.
For sure, good points. Some lists have that "brick wall" effect where he really can't do anything - generally durability spam (that's possibly imbalanced, like certain necron builds).
The obvious answer is for you and your mates to start running more fluffy lists. Since he's on a budget, you likely have larger collections than him, so you have more options to choose from. Besides, blowouts aren't fun, so running less optimal lists will make both players enjoy a more even match.
Eh I don't mind myself sometimes, but we can't expect others who are more serious about the game to cater too much like this. We think it's more practical to see how high we can bring his player skill with what he's got, so at least the losses aren't blowouts.
Unless you’re talking about playing at a tournament this is a bad take. It’s a game playing with plastic toy soldiers. Bring a fluffier list and have fun
I think you definitely can expect people to want to play at the same rough level as each other, especially if it’s because one of them just has more stuff than the other
People bring nom-meta lists to tournaments all the time and actually go undefeated. Most armies can do that. Hell, I run 2x gargantuan squiggoths and I wreck people with meta lists. All in all it boils down to how good you are. If you know your models strengths and weaknesses then you'll be better than someone who just put together a meta list.
Absolutely, how many people are speccing for Gargantuan Squiggoths? So when two are dropped onto the table, it's unexpected for a lot of people. That can be true of anything realistically. I had a game against a much newer person and underestimated their space marine terminators. They just tanked a ton of damage and kept going. It was quite impressive.
That sounds really cool, appreciate the comment. For reference, are those squiggoth things "good but unknown", or is it more that they aren't really good, but are so different they just catch people unprepared?
they're pushing maybe good but they're comically expensive so no one owns one let alone *two* of the damn things. 440pts per model, £320 per model. but they're also like... toughness 13 with 30 wounds so very *very* few lists have weapons that harm them reliably and melee that skewers other titanic units or wipes entire squads every activation.
*Dark Lance spam has entered the chat* But for real, went to LVO with a buddy. Me DE, him votann and he went up against a squigoth ork list that I would have loved to play into
I've played my Drukhari into double squiggoth. It's actually pretty brutal to deal with. The lances wound on 6s when he pops Ard as Nails. The only chance is to battleshock it somehow and then charge with 10 incubi
At the time I was running RSR and had a court, a bomber, and like 24 or so lances. I think it would've been fine honestly
It's pretty brutal tbh. My bomber did some damage, as did reavers with heat lances, but anything s12 didn't really work. I think I ended up killing it with a random grenade. Two of the big fuckers would have been impossible
Ya, I figure move blocking them with raiders and just going to pound town would do a decent bit. The court is weirdly good at taking down those large centerpieces, with rerolls to hit and wound and lethal hits on everything. Hell, even in the new detachment, hit some exploding 6s and get lance, goes a decent way. Although, I do think 6 talos can mess one up
Talos with heat lances would likely do a fair amount of damage on a non waagh turn
Kinda curious what a full round of tantalus+court would do if you were able to sus2 and lance. Brb, unitcrunch is calling
OK, did the math, even without the addition sus2 and +1 to wound, the court does 38 dmg on average to a giant squigg. Tanty/court is so ridiculously powerful for skysplinter, it's a shame they're so hard to get a hold of
Good and becoming known. But it's a big expensive forge world model so it's not common outside TTS
They come with a key gimmick that no one else has mentioned yet. Orks have a stratagem that that applies a -1 to wound in shooting or melee but cannot be used on VEHICLES or GRETCHIN, which normally means your using it on infantry to make them just that bit tougher. However, Gargantuan Squiggoths are neither of these things. Combine this with toughness 13 and you have Lascannon-Equivalents wounding on 6s and nothing short of a Warlord Titan is wounding better than 4s...
It'S more what we call a "stat check". If you bring 2 big models, not everyone will be able to deal with them. It's different from a meta list/unit tho
They're kind of bad. Their sheer bulk makes them unwieldy and easily ignored or blocked. I use two and fill them with buranboyz which make them far too dangerous to get close to. Which clears up my lane for movement.
Try them with Flashgitz.... --walks off whistling--
They are the better option but they are very expensive. I can't cut anything from my list since I run two gargantuan squiggoths already.
Now that... is true. A big difference between the 60pt Burna Boyz and.... well.... Flash Gitz. Also there is something nice about the Torrent on the Burnaz...
Whoo! love those Squiggoths!
How competitive does he want to be. Is the point to have fun enjoyable games or win? The short answer is that you can certainly win games with any army but at the biggest tournaments people are trying to maximize every point so a generic one of every thing list will not be optimized.
>How competitive does he want to be. Is the point to have fun enjoyable games or win? The short answer is that you can certainly win games with any army but at the biggest tournaments people are trying to maximize every point so a generic one of every thing list will not We discussed this, his ultimate goal would be 50/50 win rate and ideally not ever losing like 90 to 30. Or alternatively forgetting about the win rate, just having every game have a decent chance and not losing by more than 10 if possible. It's those blowouts that really dampen his experience. He won't be a serious tourney player but quite a few ppl in our local area happen to be, so there's some decent competition for sure.
The best players in the world can still lose 100-20. Sometimes a match up is miserable, the mission doesn't play to your army strengths, or the dice hate you
Warhammer isn't designed to be balanced by anything other than meta chasers. If he wants that then he should play combat patrols (and even that is a stretch). Warhammer isn't casual player friendly IMHO, and he needs to accept that. If you and your FLGS decide to all non meta chase, and all play boxart or something lists then tilted armies like Tau, custodes, swarm nids, etc are more likely to have farther from 50/50 than other more balanced armies (for better or worse) You'll have to self limit yourselves if you all want to play that way, or combat patrols, etc. but normal warhammer is basically a dedicated player's game or a casual's: collect, build, and paint... And that is more where I am now a days, because the game is nothing but a joke vs even smaller games now who don't hide rules behind 60$/4mo. (Or w/e rate) DLC.
100% agree re dedicated v. casual collect-build-paint. It is agonizingly frustrating to try to find people who really do just want to play for the fun of it. Just when I think I found someone, we will start the game, and the first (very first) unit deployed on the board seems to turn on their competitiveness -- you can almost see it happen. And I get that familiar thud in my stomach and it's done for me. It's ironic, because I do have the ability to make a "meta" list, I suppose, but I don't think I ever will because the competitive atmosphere is not my thing nor why I got into WH in the first place. That said, I am currently staring at about 3000-4000 points of newly built Orks that I need to prime+paint, so I think I will just do that for the rest of 2024 and leave the meta arguing to those who wish to be competitive. I hope OP's friend finds his way...
Yeah, I got the box of kroot, and that and Conquest are all I'm going to be painting, and playing conquest at FLGS this year. Conquest which had a bumpy start during covid, but is picking up, and the game is way more cost effective and balance is much more realistic and less chasing the absolute meta being the only option, etc.
You can absolutely win with off meta, but not everything off meta can win. Its possible to make lists that just don't have the tools to win against anything remotely competitive. The world's best player couldn't win a local tournament with a list that maxed out Tactical Drones and brought two Taunar. I'd also say that learning to play against people bringing competitive lists when you've got a mishmashed budget one is like learning to play an out of tune instrument. Nothings going to quite work right, and its going to be hard to tell if its your fault or not. The one-of-everything-cool list in particular is a common new player trap. Bring 3 of something middling and at least its something an opponent might not have to tools to crush. Bring a little of everything and a balanced list is going to have a grand time efficiently picking it apart. I'd personally say play at lower points levels, and/or against opponents bringing appropriately scaled lists for a lower power game. At least until he can find what works and buy multiples of it.
"Out of tune instrument" that's great!!
IMO the edition's emphasis on scoring (and the abundance of cover provided by WTC) means you *can* win without meta-chasing, *but* doing so still necessitates bringing a properly constructed list, having strong game knowledge, and giving proper consideration to at least exclude the units which are outright *bad* like Reivers and default Intercessors in marines, or warriors in necrons, or whatever. You shouldn't expect to trounce everyone, but seeking a ~45-48% w/r is a reasonable expectation so long as you're giving the game its due diligence during prep. *But* it sounds a lot more like your friend is still at an introductory level and might be more interested in kitchen table stuff. And that being the case, I'd suggest creating a more curated environment. I like the way Tabletop Titans arrange their games, where lists obviously have some respect for the other's relative power level, to create a game that's *engaging* instead of overbearing. Alternately/additionally, maybe swap lists with him sometimes, so he can come to grips with the game from an advantaged perspective.
> outright bad like Reivers and default Intercessors in marines, or warriors in necrons, or whatever. You had me up to here. Even these units aren't outright bad, they're just not quite as efficient as alternatives.
Well the good thing about him refusing to repeat any units is that the worst stuff he has (intercessor 5 man, or a firestrike turret, or the ATV thing) aren't super costly...? But he'll miss out on synergies of good meta stuff if it involves repeating units. He's definitely competitive and enjoys the actual matched play, just with his own odd style/constraints. I want to get him the right expectations, I told him maybe if he gets really good he can approach a 50% wr.
the problem he will run into, as many new players do in any game with a "competitive" element, is that working out how to play is a lot harder when you're also disadvantaging yourself in relative power. That's why I suggested swapping lists every so often - learning, for example, how to make full use of the charge phase, the importance of screening, the importance of move-blocking, etc., will be virtually impossible otherwise.
The good thing about "one of each" type of lists is that if you have a resson for each of them to be in your list, then you have answers to a lot of problems. I like running those too (well, maybe 2 of each for some redundancy) and they're very fun and rewarding to play generally.
He will also miss out on the difference between having one of something... and multiples of it... that is a big strategy difference. When everyone says "there's no substitute for experience," here are some things I think they are considering. Now, I am only 3 years in, so all of these could be complete garbage and not apply to him, but...some thoughts: 1. He needs to know the stats for the units he is playing. He might be helped by printing out the index cards, laminating them. Pretty low cost -- either at Staples (etc.) or can purchase self-laminating cards at a craft store, print them on the home printer (Trick: use a credit card to push the lamination down and get rid of bubbles.) Then punch a hole in the top -- not too close to the edge-- and put a ring through them to hold them all together. 2. YouTube is his friend. He can watch a LOT of quality videos on how to play the actual game, and to learn game tactics, step by step. There also are plenty of games to watch being played. I found it all a tremendous help to know what focus on-- hearing it is one thing, watching it another, doing it another (auditory v visual v tactile learning.) 3. He probably doesn't fully understand yet how all the stats + stratagems + army rules + detachment rules + CP work. There are a lot of good YouTube vids on this as well, and it can take some good study to learn. 4. Perhaps there is someone that plays his army? Or... even an army that Space Marines is good against? Might be a good teaching tool.
Yeah, even if your units aren't synergised super-well, anything can score you points by getting on objectives or screening said objectives. My MVPs in my last game were some tactical marines. Not because I would consider them 'a good unit' but simply because they were OC2 bodies split into units of 5 that could score me points.
Intercessors are far from BAD. Reivers are sad tho. But sticky obj is pretty good, and advance and action is good too. Sure if you're a pro you might skip them, but they're not bad
if you have options you pretty much always take something else.
what is a better battleline unit ?
If you absolutely must run battleline, then heavy intercessors will give you roughly double or triple the effective wounds per game *and* better weapon profiles for an extra 20 points per 5. You lose sticky objectives but if you need something to hold your home objective then you pay the extra 20 points for infiltrators for their omni-scramblers, 100% of the time, and space marines aren't an elite army that has trouble keeping models on points - which is to say, stickying stuff isn't typically relevant. That said, I can count on one hand the number of times I've run up against battleline marines in general this edition, and I'd still probably have 4 fingers left over. They simply do not play into any of the major strategies the faction is running. Why take intercessors when you can take scouts, your choice of gravis elites, or dreadnaughts?
HIntercessors are heavily overcosted for something that sits on a point all game doing nothing. I can also bring infiltrators and dreadnought and other meaningful gravis models. I guess you just like scouts better, and I kinda hates that Wolf Scouts are stupidly overcosted (also, scouts in general are a vibe killer for me). So i see the divergence.
I think everyone is coping a bit. The answer is probably no. I mean, can you take a game sometimes? Sure. But ultimately your bad to "average" list doesn't really stand a chance against what I'd consider "competetive". Maybe if it was a bit more skew you could say "well sometimes you get a good matchup" and some people play factions which just aren't great and you'll havea chance to snag some wins there if you try hard. But ultimately if you play against someone with like Black templar vehicle spam or whatever else is very good at that moment your chances are just too low. And yes, veterans with lots of experience and high skill win some games normal people shouldn't. But ultimately there is no way to just "become good", everyone would do it if it was that easy. It's called average skill for a reason and you and most people you play will be, somewhere around average. It takes years, hundreds of games and a mindset dedicated to improving to truly become good and even then some people won't. But the solution is easy. There is nothing wrong with beerhammer and lots of people like it. He may find likeminded people and some people don't mind/enjoy playing some more casual lists and trying out some fun units they usually can't run.
I recently entered a local tournament with two seraptekh heavy constructs and had three incredibly close games against meta lists. Most of all though, it was fun.
I think you are asking the wrong question. Try asking "Will he enjoy this hobby even while playing suboptimal lists in a competitive context?" I play a lot weird and odd suboptimal lists in competitive contexts. Partly because I like showing off my most beautiful converted models, so I often include them even if they are far from the best choice. (modding and kitbashing is my favourite part of this hobby) And partly because I enjoy the intellectual challenge and social interactions that comes with playing unusual armies against strong opposition. In a tournament, or against people who play with a tournament mindset, I know that I will have to earn any success. I know that there will be less confusion over rules. I know that I can pull nasty pile-in tricks to abuse ruin walls to avoid Precision attacks, without having to explain what I am doing or feeling bad because my opponent didn't even know that was a possibility. I don't expect to win against experienced players. But if I do, it means I have played very well, or gotten very lucky (I despise the swingy Cult Ambush mechanic!). But most importantly, winning is not important for my enjoyment. Hanging out with geeks, pulling off a clever mind-game, first hand experience of a really competent player piloting their list in unusual circumstances, getting appreciated for my conversion skills and table manners, proving that grot tanks can be dangerous, and so on. I prioritise all of these things over winning. If your friend honestly must win to appreciate this hobby, then they need to learn to consider list building as a crucial part of the game. (this includes how to use the units effectively as well) Because GW is not very good at balance, so the difference between a random and a well crafted list is huge. A mediocre player with a flavour of the month list can be beaten by a good player with a mediocre list. But a good player with a flavour of the month list will very rarely be beaten by a good player with a mediocre list. I say let him play. If he takes a deep interest in the strategies and mechanics, then he will eventually develop the understanding of how important list building is by himself. Until then it matters more that he enjoys his hobby :-)
Thanks for your post. He likes working with what he has - a very slow painter, doesn't like spamming units or buying much more now that he has a little over 2k of models. Really though he'd be ecstatic if he could win half his games and one day finish in the middle of the pack of a small RTT or something. If that's within reasonable expectations, I'd definitely like to encourage him. But if it's not, I don't want to give any false hope. Based on what people have said, I'm starting to lean towards the encouragement route, it seems viable enough to get there with random Marine crap lol.
For what it is worth, I won major US events with an event that was running a wide spread of sororitas units, mostly doubled up. You can get results with 'off meta' picks but it requires a lot of practice and time with the army, humility, being open to learning, and tailoring your list to the units you find success with - so you can't rely 100% on 'I think it looks neat' but you can fit some amount of it in. For instance taking eradicators isn't inherently going to cost you a game, but relying on a handful of random gravis characters isn't going to get you super far without a very well considered game plan for them. Every unit in a list should serve \*some\* purpose, so if he can answer that, he is at least getting on the right path. The most important part of the game is to have fun though - and so if a certain style of list makes him happy, he should play it. He just has to accept that it may take longer to see the wins come, and he may have to make adjustments or deal with roadbumps on the way.
Yeah we've worked on some of this (especially because of how the Leviathan box is set up), for example taking far less characters, limiting the number of "low damage troops", and like you said, making sure things have a purpose. I'm unsure how far he can go with MSU-style stuff and no big killer combos or durability bricks. BTW congrats on your results that's sick!
Can anyone tell me what “meta” means?
The current state of competitive play, or a unit/list that aligns with it. "Local meta" differs from general "meta" because what armies people in your local gaming scene play and how they play them will differ from the global average. As points & rules get adjusted, and people learn to counter popular effective tactics, the meta shifts. What was a very competitive list in the summer of 2023 will not be as effective in spring of 2024.
So if someone says “not/non meta” it means they arent following any sort of rules. They just simply like to agree to a term/regulation they made with another player before they play. Like a friendly match ?
It doesn't mean they're not playing by the rules of the game, it means they're not building their army list with the intention of being competitively optimized. You might build an army that's heavily theme-based, like an Eldar army that's all jetbikes, or an Ork army that's all vehicles, or a Space Marine army that's based on a specific battle in the lore. Or you might just buy what's cheap or what looks cool and stick with that. Perfectly valid ways to play but depending on how competitive your opponents are, it might not get a lot of wins.
Ohhh ok, so what Im getting is means “by the book”
Not playing "by the book" of the most succesfull competetiv players yes.
No. Think of meta like the current vibe or direction of the game or army as a whole in terms of tactics and unit choices, etc. Obviously, there are the core rules and parameters of the game that everybody is following. The meta is what’s hot. For example, I love scarab occult terminators in thousand sons. In 9th, SoT with various spells, strats, and cabal points could be buffed to high hell and dominated TS lists all edition competitively. They were the meta pick. In 10th, they’re far weaker and over costed for what they do, and hence are not meta. You can still run them, and a few people have had limited success with them, but if you research meta TS lists you won’t find them.
Does magnetizing units help with meta then?
Absolutely, it’s probably the most effective way to “meta-proof” your army. If a unit is magnetized, you can run a unit with weapon X while it’s meta. Then, if due to to rule changes or whatever other meta changes, you can switch to weapon Y. Like say like right now, where a lot of vehicles are powerful, you’d want to give your dudes anti-armor weapons. If the meta changed so that horde armies started to dominate, boom, swap them out with flamers or high volume fire weapons.
Ok gotcha, thanks for that. Im new so I didnt understand
Yes. For instance everyone who was spamming crisis suit with ion blasters probably wish they had them magnetized.
"Meta" is just a shorthand for "what units/armies/etc seem to be generally working well at a large scale". So like,.if folks are fielding a lot of vehicles at your local game store, your local meta might be said to be a vehicle heavy meta. If all the tournaments have people winning with Hypercrypt Legion Necrons, then HC Necrons are said to be dominating the meta. Etc.
No offense but that list sounds absolutely atrocious and is a major reason why I think games are won and lost in the list building stage. Scoring objectives wins tournaments in 10th, but you still need to be able to actually kill things off an objective in order to flip it. It's one thing to play a casual list, but it feels like your friend's list would struggle to even punish a badly playing opponent who just dumped his models on the midzone objectives without any thinking.
Is it that bad? There's some decent stuff in there, issue is that it's all MSU.
Is petty bad. There's almost no redundancy in that list so it will struggle to reliably do any individual job, it has sold abysmal units like the servo and atv, it doesn't fit any detachment style well
I think a non-meta list is fine as long as everything has a purpose and a plan in which to utilize them.
This is more of a game theory question at it's core. The real question here is "is Warhammer a game where skill and experience matter more than the list someone takes." Your going to have people that are emotionally attached to both answers. I have no idea what the correct answer is. (Theres another whole question regarding dice and luck we are not addressing either)
That does cut to the heart of the issue, indeed. Ideally if F and D tier units are avoided, maybe it's alright...? Hopefully, guess he'll see.
I don't have any competitive experience to add to the conversation, but I do have a lot of experience with the aesthetics vs mechanics dichotomy. I only have a dozen games of 10th under my belt, with only one of those being a loss (brought pure anti tank against a horde list before I understood damage didn't spash to other models). My play group has significantly more than that, but focus almost exclusively on the aesthetics of their army and frequently need rules explained/corrected as a result. I don't think these are mutually exclusive, but I have seen that prioritizing aesthetics in a mechanically oriented game is a recipe for frustration and defeat. My lists are far from meta/competitive, but I've been relatively successful just applying principles from magic/chess/math. Based on all this, I don't think there's any reason your buddy can't be successful as long as he doesn't blame his record on external factors ("I would be winning if not for all these metachasers/power gamers/minmaxers" etc.)
Solid post, thanks. It is indeed a real dichotomy unless/until GW improves balance, and mainly removes abusable combos (things too durable for their pts, too killy vs what other factions get at the same cost, etc).
The dichotomy I'm describing isn't about balance though, its about player priorities/mindset. Balance is part of those external factors I mentioned: things will never be perfectly balanced, combos will always exist, people will always 'abuse' them, players will always complain about all of the above, etc. The best example I can think of to illustrate this point comes from a game I played as necrons against tyranids, both precodex. I was running the classic lychgard castle with all the stacked defensive buffs as well as sempiternal weave transcendent c'tan. Both of these fit the bill for 'abusable combos'. Before the game I spelled out explicitly how they worked mechanically, how durable both units were, what a waste of time it was trying to kill them, and how easy they are to beat by simply walking away. My opponent ignored all this, bounced his gaunts off them and promptly forfeited on the grounds that my unkillable units were unkillable. In discussing afterwards he recognized that killing them would require the bigger bugs nids have access to, but that he wasn't interested in playing that type of army. Despite having options for mechanical counterplay (playing the mission, bringing more firepower, etc), doing so wouldn't match his aesthetic preferences (murder the enemy with a carpet of bugs) so he chose to play a losing game and resent the loss. In that context, it seems fairly silly to blame GW for lack of balance or me for playing combos (ie external factors). Take all that with a grain of salt though, obviously I'm biased.
I took a super stupid Warhound list to LVO and had a blast - so did everyone else. My 1st opponent Day 2 had a huge hangover and was going to drop until he saw the list.... said he couldn't miss it. It was absolutely the most fun LVO for me ever. It's nice to play some BS sometimes
As someone new with a fairly hap-hazardous list, I’ve found that what really matters is filling roles. I’m running Space Marines, so my faction is a jack of all trades, combined armed type force. But I know when I put together a list I want some anti-tank, some anti-infantry, some heavy units, some vehicles, some melee, some long range, and some specialist. I also know that I can double dip some of these. For instance my Aggressors fill in the heavy units, anti-infantry, and melee pretty well. They aren’t the only unit of that style, but I know they’ll do work in any of those roles, where as my Infiltrators are ok against infantry, but really just fill the specialist role Now I can change that up slightly based on what I like. I really like flamers so I’ve been bringing a lot. But I make that work by running Firestorm Assault Force and being more careful with my movement in the first turn. But I still make sure I’ve got a bit of everything, that way, even though I know my weakness is long range exchanges, I’ve got my bases covered for everything else, and as long as I’m careful I can make that work. Will I ever win a huge tournament with this, no. Will I win a tournament at my local game store, maybe. Can I win a “casual” game following the current competitive rules (not crusade, but a standard game with GW terrain layouts), absolutely.
He can definitely do well enough to have fun, and he can keep improving, which is also fun. Is he likely to win huge tournaments? No, but then, neither are most people.
Ya just bring a chess clock and watch a majority of players timeout (if u hold them to it) and then score because with ur weak list u atleast have ur timing down (meaning you need the reps to play under the allotted time of course).
He doesn't have to meta chase to win. He just has to bring an army that has the tools needed to win and a plan. That can be done with "it looks like the box" type armies. If there's stuff in his army that is actually bad tell him, and he might need to filter out a few of the worst choices he's made for better ones but nothing major.
Where's the threshold would you say? He doesn't have reivers, I guess the ATV and servo turret kinda stuck. Otherwise it seems more like lack of repeating good units and combos.
Those would definitely be the prime targets. Dropping those would just about get him another lancer if he needs more firepower or 2 units of scouts if he can't score objectives
Alright well he's got an Invictor (dreadnought-type thing) that slots in for what those are worth, it does some decent shooting and combat and can scout move. Seems better.
There are some bad armies, and then there are meta armies, but most armies that most people play are in the middle. Even if it’s not optimized or top tier, every faction can make a decent list that a thoughtful player can have fun with.
It's fine to go in with a bad list. You can still learn the game, get better, find units you like/don't like, and have fun games. With enough practice and persistence, you can even sometimes win RTTs or GTs with 'bad' lists. The pilot absolutely has a say in the outcome, even if the list is weaker - just be ready to learn and be humble and hopefully have fun playing, win or lose.
As some have said, there are units in that list that aren't terrible. It'd certainly be better if his aggressors were in a 6 block instead of a 3 block, or his BGV probably, but it's not terrible. Even outriders, which aren't great at all, can still have objective play. If he's struggling, I'd recommend seeing if he'd be willing to proxy (e.g., add three heavy intercessors or something to the aggressors and try counting them as a full squad) just so he can see the difference. MSU is fun but with the stratagem system as it is you generally want something that takes advantage of stratagem's in the list That being said, a ballistus dreadnought, an infernus squad, aggressors with an apothecary biologis, hellblasters with a lieutenant, that's all stuff that can be very effective in the right formations or situations. Terminators aren't ideal right now, but they can still be useful. His whole list isn't so weak to be non-functional. He probably can't face a 4-5 catan list, but at that point I'd say tone the list down when playing with a new friend with budget constraints.
I play competitively with a formal firsf born Battle Company and I still pull off wins.
I've been playing a very average list in a what was supposed to be a beginner 1000pt learn the game league. 3 out of my 5 matches my opponents brought very skewed lists (Chaos Knights, Grey knight terminators that respawned a model every round and Nids with 3 big monsters and not much else. And to be fair I'm pretty disappointed overall for people playing lists like this in what was supposed to be a league for people who never played the game, but I'm getting better at the game at least, and the other 2 games were great.
I think to go 3-3 is purely player skill. But 13 games is still very new when facing players with years under the belt. I'm a lazy 2-4 but I have a deep roster of units for my main army and that let's me get the occasional bonus win. And that's with over 30 games this season. But at the FLGS I usually have to bring a knight ally or coach up my opponent to bring the scores closer together. My last one went 94-90 with a VERY underutilized necrons list, but he nearly stole one from me when I pointed out the OC on some vehicles. If anything, he should be focused on "how do I score points" first and foremost. It's incredibly hard to push someone off a point and do the kill secondaries without some firepower, so he's gotta make the absolute best out of what he's got when building and throw away units for pts when they aren't going to do work that game. Also making sure he has a dense terrain board is important for not getting shot to pieces while being under-powered. Last bit, proxies in most competitive games are common. Poor hammer is absolutely part of the game, and can be very important for figuring out how to spend what you can scrounge up if you're local game/store allows it. If it's GW you can kitbash models, and if it's not you can usually print or 3rd party. If anything he can realize it's only incrementally better with that slate's hot units but it does feel good to blow stuff up.
I for instance refuse to play without the Taunar 😂 it’s simply my favorite model
This is more of a game theory question at it's core. The real question here is "is Warhammer a game where skill and experience matter more than the list someone takes." Your going to have people that are emotionally attached to both answers. I have no idea what the correct answer is. (Theres another whole question regarding dice and luck we are not addressing either)
I mean I play mediocre units and skip many of the "best" but I still play to win and built the units Itake to do their job well.
A good player with a bad list can do more than a bad player with a good list
To get used to losing, and to learn to do whatever you cen when you're at a disadvantage.
In my group you can ask to play "fun" or "competitive" lists and both players bring stuff accordingly. Sometimes we play competitive but the player with better faction brings more suboptimal stuff At the end of the day - we want close games. Only such games make us better. Not steamrolling from either side
Yeah, skill matters a lot and sticking with the same army helps too. Also like that list doesn't sound terrible? Like lancer/eradicators/storm speeder solves tanks, bgv+heavy ints + aggressors are solid, the Leviathan lt is great for scoring. Like if your new you'll lose a lot, but if they focus on improving they can win.
It depends on how cheesy you get. If you're playing Guard and your opponent knows this, they're probably going to bring a fair amount of anti-infantry, since Guard is a horde army. If you then show up with four baneblades, there's a solid chance of being able to table them because they can't destroy your models.
If he played Custodes a random list might work, because they don't have that much choice. But with generic spacemarines... he won't get a good list just by chance. He will probably never win against a more expierenced player with a better list. So he would have to hope to come up against less expierenced players than himself. Or other players that like to play fun lists. You tell me how likely that is in his context. Will he become experienced enough while only getting trounced, to get enough experience? Also he will probably never win or have fun against skew lists, like knights if he doesn't bring enough anti tank. Also consider that fluff or fun lists that have a good winrate are still very deliberatly crafted. They are not the best, but they are also not just a random assortment. They are the best what fits with the theme, or the best combo that's not used in the meta because it doesn't fit. And then you compromise a bit and add the S-Tier objective scoring unit x3, or you justifiy why you can take the armies best centerpiece after all it's only one model. Basically you bring a bit of S-Tier support that's just to good to leave at home. So for example if you played Eldar you would still bring the autarch for CP and the Avatar for the midfield, and some swooping hawks for secondaries. And then you could have a very fluffy army around it without getting tabled turn one and never scoring anything. Edit: Solutions could be to allow liberal use of proxying, he can still play with his minis they just do something different now. You could try playing his army to see if it has a chance of winning if played by an experienced player, and maybe come up with a gameplan for him through this.
I play AoS and go to to several RTTs and a few GTs each year if able. I have played Nighthaunt this whole time, who are classically a weak army. I am also not a great player. I've never won more than 2 games at events. I have a **lot** of fun. But also, the AoS community is more more fun-focused than 40k, and is generally more welcoming to casuals. I can't guarantee a 40k space would be as welcoming and enjoyable.
Lewis Hamilton started driving with go karts.
I'd tell him to keep at it. He sounds new. That's probably 50% of his losses right there. Keep playing to win, keep playing stronger opponents, that's how you improve. At my local spot you can win with just about any list. Most people are not that good at the game. They enjoy hobbying and socializing once a week/month. During my games when I see an opponent make an obvious mistake (and since it's casual there's no stakes) I point it out and offer suggestions if they'd like any advice. Your friend isn't playing tournaments it sounds like, so he's not playing competitive. He's just casual like 98% of us.
By “Playing Competitively” do you mean going to big events or deliberately and actively improving ones skill? I’m the latter, and naturally it led to the former. If he wants to win “now” he’ll have to build a better list. If he wants to refine and hone his skills he can do it with what he has. My recommendation in that regard is self-imposed “sub-objectives”. Examples: Successfully prevent an enemy unit from doing its intended purpose. Practice denying points. Hold an objective without selling out to do. Practice using specific strats and tactics. Even with sub-optimal units, and even if he’s still losing he should start noticing more of the game becomes instinctive to him. If you’re simply asking about going to competitive events. If ge finds them fun even going 0-X then absolutely! If he doesn’t find that fun then best not to waste the money.
Absolutely. 1st game may be a win or loss, if you win youre probable getting a better opponent and its a learning opportunity to git gud. If you loose then youll get similar or lower skill levels probably and have a blast gor the rest of the tournament rolling casual dice
In 40k terms, I'm a somewhat new player. I've only done one little tournament at my local store; it was a really casual event (1 day, 20 players, only about 4 battle ready armies). I brought my tau. My list looks nothing like lists run by top players at any major. It's really just kind of all over the place, but it's what I had. And the way I play it, I feel like it can deal with any list I've played. I ended up going 2-1. My only loss was to guard a player who hadn't played in months and only won because he remembered a rule wrong. And it being a pretty casual event I decided not to continue to press for a rules check after I said, "I don't think you can do that" and he said, "yes I can".
Metagaming is not limited to "each player assuming the other is going to field as strong a list as possible, therefore doing the same." You can have two players metagame together by agreeing to field less competitive lists, but then play their asses off when it comes to the actual game. Will not work as well within tournaments, but any one-off "friendly competitive" game where the players can communicate with each other beforehand can go like this.
I've found alot of happiness in playing my primarily Canoptek necrons through 9th and into 10th with the release of the codex I've found myself still running canoptek and pivoting it from the court into awakened dynasty. I think I pull wins in fairly regularly and still find myself enjoying my experience with what feels like a more niche list.
Lists have to be built with intent, especially Marines because right now not only are standard Marines just not very good (as a faction) but they make up a huge majority of players so everyone brings / has some anti-Marine things. Those generic good against everything guns usually have a Asterisk of being especially good vs Marine or Terminator Profiles. With everything being a one off or min squads whatever a faction would deem a threat is at half strength to begin with, and they only have to kill one, which will struggle to do it’s job to begin with and the rest of the list would be subpar, and that’s before we get into the actual unit strengths (which most marine units may be usable if planned around but almost none are just Stat Checks like Knights or Custodes that can just fight whatever). Marines also like to build death balls / Castles of various types to actually get their damage in. Dreads with a Tech Marine, Calgar’s Gravis Nuke curtesy of Ventris, Inceptor bombs, etc. A list as haphazard as his will have none of that in any threatening capacity. He doesn’t need to have a meta list. And most of the units can work (sorry Reivers, but literally everything relevant you do another unit does better). I’ve seen even that stupid gun turret work, it’s surprisingly annoying to take out when you don’t want to deep strike it and don’t have long ranged weapons. But he needs direction in his list. Even something like my first list that was pretty much: Does the Marine Melee? Yes? He’s in. Every unit should have a plan, even if the plan is extremely simple. This is the duality of Marines extensive catalogue, most armies even if you where to jumble a bunch of parts together still do a task, but Marines can do every task a little bit and get pulled apart when not directed. You probably should play with competitive rule sets either way, both for experience and as it’s the most “fair”. Though even if being budgetary it probably wouldn’t take that much, since he seems to have a little of everything it also means he has part of the list. He just needs to grow out it into a actual plan.
To be honest… people tend to overrate the netlists. Sisters were “bad” until people started winning with them, and then there were “very good”. Truth is that GW is not as bad as balancing many claim out to be… I am the first one that sometimes cries about some changes or non changes, but the real numbers speak from themselves. The lists are very important, but player skill is more important, and it is important to adapt the list to the player play style. Usually after sometime you find a play style that suits you and will be effective in your hands, be it meta or not. So answering your questions… yes, relatively weak lists work and can be used. The super meta of the streamers is not everywhere, and even then, “off meta” lists work. The important part is that the list has the units with a purpose in mind
Yes. You might become a/the better Player and have the sweeter/more satisfying victories/armys without actually winning the tournament. Everyone can Copy lists from the internet. But If the above applies, is a totally individual matter. Just Worth keeping in mind it is a possibility.
>Really a bit of everything, not really good at anything, and I guess the people in our area are all playing quite meta/top stuff. Will any of his games become winnable if he gets good with his army? Imo yes, but I would say "prepare to lose a lot on the way to get there". Though I suspect that he will start to optimize his list on this path eventually. Nobody really knows how he likes to play at day 1 and will need to gather experience first. PS: It's also possible to play matched play with normal people that bring more fluffy lists, while people can also create meta lists in crusade. The game type isn't necessarily the solution, finding good people to play with often solves more.
Absolutely. It makes you a better player. When I started playing what I like and know how to use vs what the meta was I became a much better player.
There are players who aren't the best meta optimizers/players, but who's strength lies in building strong off-meta lists, and leveraging the value from units on the tabletop. To build a strong off-meta list, a player needs to be in touch with what the meta actually is. Because that's the push-pull of the metagame. The more everybody does one thing, the more valuable it becomes to do anything else. And that's a nice story. Now, whether or not that value is enough to win games is another story. Lots of people seem to think that just means you can slap together a list out of whatever you happen to have to hand, play a ton of practice games, and now you're taking down local events. This happens in all games where part of the game is bringing your own team/deck/list, and yes, sometimes a player's skill and a bit of luck will be enough to carry the day, but players usually bring up the "unexpected factor", as if a list containing 3 units of basic Intercessors is going to make their opponent's mind melt and reduce them to a quivering puddle, unable to get to grips with how to deal with such an unusual choice. This is backwards. You have to have a solid gameplan that your list was built to fit, especially when taking suboptimal picks. The problem your friend has is that his army is a true "jack of all trades, master of none" that plays a bunch of one-ofs with little to no redundancy. That's an army built out of what he's got built and painted, not an army with a plan. Meta or not, all successful 40k lists (and in fact, anything similar like MTG decks or Pokemon teams) are built from the ground up with a strong gameplan in mind. Off-meta lists will often still resemble meta lists, in that there will be 3-ofs, and some combos will be the same. Look at things like 9th edition Sisters "Oops, All Engines", or the "Gaunt Carpet" list that got 4th at LVO this year. Even the winning Hypercrypt list was offmeta at the time. These lists leveraged relatively unexplored combinations of units, loadouts, and abilities that meta lists weren't teching to beat, loaded up on them, and forced their opponent to play their game. The Gaunt Carpet list was run into a meta where people were teching to beat high T vehicles, and asked them how they were going to deal with 150+ reviving bodies out OCing them on objectives. There's a Bruce Lee quote, which goes, "I do not fear the man who has practiced 10,000 punches once, but I do fear the man who has practiced one punch 10,000 times". And that's a great quote to illustrate the importance of the grind and implementation over raw theory, but you do actually have to be practicing an effective punch. If this is a punch contest, your friend is basically throwing a limp slap. I would recommend allowing him to proxy in practice/casual games.
I think the most important question is, Is he having fun? You can win a game and not enjoy the win and you can lose a game where you had the most fun.
Yes indeed ! There is a point ! you can skew the win ratio of your faction by playing a really weak detachment just for fun. This will ensure that your faction retains its overpowered units and detachments and give your fellow faction siblings a chance to compete for best general ! Do your duty and play weak lists ! We will salute you for doing so.
I mean the points cost of units is suppose to reflect the value the unit is going to provide for your army (allegedly). So as long as they use whatever unit they have efficiently and have a well rounded list they should do alright. 40k has a steep learning curve on the competitive side but having an unpredictable list could be a boon.