Are netlists an issue?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon folks!

So. Netlists. Some people love them, some people loathe them, and some people aren't at all fussed.

But are they actually a problem?

To me, they have upsides and downsides. Upsides, they can give an insight into how a given army might work on the battlefield, which is pretty invaluable to new comers. They also tend to involve a minimum of conversions to field, with a couple of exceptions (like Jetbike mounted Seer Councils). For people on a tight budget, they enable you to assemble a force with minimal cost wastage.

Downsides? Typical issue of received wisdom. Just because someone says a given list is good, doesn't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things, and can lead to some units being maligned for little good reason (though this is not universal. Some units really are just a bit duff). And another one...it sets a certain entry level. 40k can be played at pretty much any points value of 500 upwards, but Netlists can help to create an image that a given points limit is the actual practical minimum. This can potentially lead to some feeling locked out by price when it's not necessarily true.

So how do you feel about them? Are they a necessary part of the game, are they an abomination unto Nuggan*



*Nuggan is a God from Terry Pratchett's Discworld. For more info, go read Monstrous Regiment :)

[Bob821]

I say let people enjoy there hobby as they see fit. Part of the fun for me is pooring over my codex and developing a list over a few battles but that does not mean every one should do the same.

[jifel]

It lets people recognize good units. It also helps people recognize what they could play against and counter it. It's definitely Neutral.

[Lukas The Trickster]

Not fussed really, although there's nothing as boring as a netlists bore, particularly the ones who invite others opinions and then take offence when they are given ;)

[Lord Byte]

They still need to be able to play, and many who just take the latest FOTM list lack that, so only the good players are still a challenge :)

[Baneblade]

They break the spirit of the game. It creates mismatched games. If you want to play tournament style go to tournaments otherwise use a different lists for pick up games.

[harveydent]

If you don't care at all about a stable tournament environment, and you don't mind that some games of 40k/whfb end up being a waste of time and unenjoyable, then whatever - it's just a book with some guidelines for pushing models around.

But if you want a truly competitive tournament environment, and one that naturally brings problems with the game's design and development to light so that they can be corrected, repetition (army list copying) is a necessity. The end result of this initial clumping (list copying and repetition) is that the tournament environment will diversify, either due to the game's designers making direct (or indirect) changes to the system or its codices, or due to players recognizing flaws in the bulk of the lists being played and exploiting those flaws with their own army lists.

[Deadlift]

Does the "net list" even exist anymore ?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I suspect it does; the furious rate of recent releases might have gone some way to nullifying it, though. The metagame isn't static enough for the usual standard net lists to rise to the top.

[DarkLink]

Netlist is just a quasi-political buzzword. Taking a Seer Council does not make a netlist, it just means you're taking a particular unit that's generally overpowered due to a rules exploit. I've never actually seen anyone do Khan+CM on bike+6x5 Grav gun bikes, though I have seen plenty of bike-heavy armies lately.

Really, it's a misnomer. It's not netlists that are a problem, it's netunits/combos. GW does a terrible job at catching poorly written rules, and so we get units like 2 Farseers+the Baron+10 Warlocks on bikes. But as much as the internet complains about netlists, there really aren't any actual netlists that people actually play to complain about. There are problem units, and there are problem combos (that mainly arise from either specific pieces of wargear like the Grimnoire, or from the fact that Battle Brothers even exist), but not really any lists per se.

[Wolfshade]

Haven't we done this one recently:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?30930-Morality-of-the-Net-List
?

[chadsteam]

First, you are missing an answer and you have the same answer twice. To each his own and six is half a dozen are the same answer. So I had to vote for abomination, which over states my opinion. So my choices are, it's good, it's neutral, it's neutral, it's terrible.

In reality, I think it's not net neutral, but net bad. There are certainly great insights when you see a net list. Especially when you understand the core of the list and you swap out a semi-irrelevant unit for your favorite models. Not your list is pretty competitive and fun because you get to use something you like and probably spent time and effort painting. 1 vote good.

The problem with net lists is in that same example. People throw on the internet a list that looks good on Math hammer. But that can't account for player skill, opponent skill, pure fun to play, etc. now you just spent money building an 1850 or 2000pt list that you don't enjoy or struggle to win with. Your local meta is so different than tourney meta, your list doesn't work at you LGS. In addition, since everyone is competing for the best net list, the diversity of lists shrinks and people see the same cookie cutter builds instead of the fun diversity this game is capable of. 1 vote bad.

Finally, net lists lead to endless counter unit arguments. The old, this unit sucks because that unit can kill it. Units that have great synergy with their army, or better survivability not on their own, but because of a more important target get dropped from everyday lists, get trashed on the internet and players are stuck with expensive, painted models they no longer use. (Note: some units actually do get much worse when a new codex drops, but that's the exception, not the norm). The worst offenders are net posters who say, unit x is terrible for it's point cost/defense/offense...and then in another post state, I haven't played a game with the new codex/edition. If you haven't actually experienced the unit in battle, you should put a disclaimer in your post stating "this is my opinion without actual game experience". 1 vote bad

So for me, I have 1 good and 2 bad so net bad, but no where near abomination bad.

[Mr Mystery]

There is a difference between the two ostensibly neutral options.

First one is 'doesn't bother me personally'. Second one is 'they have positive and negative traits'.

[Learn2Eel]

I don't see any problem with them. They give beginners a good list to base the rest of an army off, and it also provides them a solid list with which they can win games as they learn.

[Defenestratus]

They're a huge issue to someone like me who just wants to show up at his LGS with his Iyanden-themed army and play a fun game.

When I show up, the only game I can get is against some dude who has a fragile ego and uses toy soldiers as his only way of feeling better about himself - and thus feels the need to maim and destroy his opponents at the expense of an enjoyed experience all around.

Netlists make this infinitely easier.

[chicop76]

Not a problem with enlist. Typically the person that uses them are garbage to begin with a d you can typically outsmart and defeat them anyway.

However netlist is actually good with people who actually played said army or the one that actually built the list in the first place. Also netlist don't count for local meta as well, said netlist could had been made vs local meta.

I try to make my list generalized to where I can accomplish objectives and be able to win against any foe. 6th makes that really hard. It forces you to really recognise your weakness and strengths. Like knowing 6 fleshhounds will have a really hard time killing 12 fire warriors that is stubborn and at leadership 10. People assume they would win every fight with Tau and not really think about getting pass d grenades and 4 plus armour. Grant it power weapons cut them down rather easily. Won many games due to Tau holding back units I wanted in combat. I rather kill off the follow up units instead of units that will only be there to tie units in combat, that's why I stick a Herald with my hounds.

It really comes to skill and experanice a lot of times. Although certain builds can be hard to defeat.

[bronkasaurus]

Personally I like to play against them, it makes it easy to smash netlisters at tourneys with armies that wouldn't otherwise win. *Cough* Warmasters Ontario *Cough* Using one however? I'd rather not, it gives people tunnel vision about codices.