Does trying to play the metagame make you a worse player?

[Kahoolin]

OK so I have this theory that all this interwebs talk of "the metagame" could be damaging people's performance. Having all these opinions at your fingertips can make it seem as if we are all connected and all playing against each other in one huge league when that is not in fact the case.

Don't get me wrong, I love the work the BoLS folks do, but when they write about their local metagame they naturally write about it as if is worldwide and extensive, foe example the recent "death of mech" articles. The net can make it seem as if everyone all over the world is fielding the same sorts of armies, and in my experience that is very unlikely. People pay good money for their toy soldiers and tend to buy what they like. There's nothing wrong with the BoLS crowd discussing their metagame publicly, but too many people seem not to take such things with a grain of salt, and respond as if we are all participating in a world wide metagame.

This is simply not true. If I tweak my list to counter my mates, then I am playing our metagame, not the world metagame. If I design my list based on internet opinion and then come at my mates, I am reacting to the world's metagame locally, which is obviously an inappropriate and strategically clumsy response. Designing your army to counter some imaginary worldwide mech infestation is not going to help you locally if none of your opponents play mech. The internet really can give you the illusion that "everyone" is building their list a certain way. Hell, even if everyone on the net IS building lists like that, you aren't playing everyone on the net, you're just talking to them.

Just an idle thought. Remember kids, there is no metagame, only metagames.

[Madness]

Nigel Stillman once said:
Pick an army, a balanced army, name all your units, your generals, your peons, paint them in a fitting color scheme, apply some varnish, and never touch them again, resist any temptation to add or change the units. Let the way you field your units and your manoeuvres show your skill as a commander.

While a little extreme I buy into this creed.

[Papa Nurgle]

Playing the Meta Game stresses me out. When I play, I like playing a nice casual game. The Meta Game should be reserved for Tournaments. However, I find that the Meta Gamers cannot turn their game off. So even when I play them outside a tournament, they still play the meta game. Then I have to resort to a meta game and it becomes less fun for me.

[DarkLink]

Allow me to quote Sun Tzu;

'It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.'


Knowing the meta is simply knowing your opponent. Knowing how to deal with enemy armies/units will make you a better general, not a worse one. Though you are right about the local vs global meta being slightly different.

Relying on the internet for tactical advice, however, means that you won't know yourself. And that will make you a worse general.

[Papa Nurgle]

Allow me to quote Sun Tzu;

'It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.'


Knowing the meta is simply knowing your opponent. Knowing how to deal with enemy armies/units will make you a better general, not a worse one. Though you are right about the local vs global meta being slightly different.

Relying on the internet for tactical advice, however, means that you won't know yourself. And that will make you a worse general.

I agree. Pulling an army list off the internet does not teach you how to run it. I watch many people fall prey to not knowing what their army can do.

When I prepare to face an opponent, I face them and not their army.

[Kahoolin]

Though you are right about the local vs global meta being slightly different.Actually I'm saying the global meta doesn't exist. It is an illusion created by mass communication. There are only local metas.

[fade_74]

Remember also, that metagame is a little more than what most people think. Your demeanor and confidence are also a part of the meta. If I can make you think you are going to lose, odds are, you will. If I can make someone second guess a sound tactical decision, thats also meta. Know the rules, and play like you do. Never let someone see you sweat. There are to many metatactics to list. I would suggest watching poker....or better yet...watch a 9 ball tournament. See how people get into each others heads.

Just a reminder.....being confident and playing with others minds doesn't mean "be an asshat". To many people are cocky, swaggering jerks in any game or sport. See Profession basketball.

[BuFFo]

In my gaming store, I "AM" the metagame... ;)

Players build lists to try to beat me when I decide to play.... Lately I have been building tons of terrain lol.

Everyone who is practicing for the 'Ard Boyz is always trying to game with me, because they know I know the rules better than most, and a game with me will teach them a lot...

It also helps that my Dark Eldar list variations are negligible no matter my opponent... :o

[Polonius]

Actually I'm saying the global meta doesn't exist. It is an illusion created by mass communication. There are only local metas.

That's less than absolutely true. The global meta is less reactive than people think, but it does respond to the rules changes. there are more transports in nearly every local meta than there there two years ago, and more troops. You can argue that those aren't really part of a "meta game", but I think that they are.

The vast majority of 40k players, even competitive ones, play in fairly insular meta games, where being able to beat a few lists is far more important than anything happening online. I'm not sure that means the global meta is a myth, just that it's probably a lot more subtle than most people realize.

[Lerra]

I agree that the global meta is overemphasized, but to say that meta beyond the local level does not exist is a bit extreme. Just look at the cons that draw in people from around the world. In our local tournaments we will get the occasional competitor from another state or college student who is home for the summer. Not to mention all of the 40k media like BoLS that allow all of our local metas to interact.

My local meta is constantly interacting with other local metas, and that network of local metas forms the global meta.

[slxiii]

a "Global Metagame" doesn't technically exist, in my opinion, but many people learning the 5th edition rules simultaneously will come to the same conclusions at around the same times. For instance, everyone realized that mech was very durable, and after that that melta was viable because mech was durable, and so on and so on. In my local area we have always played death rollers working vs vehicles, so this "the sky is falling" thing is already past me.

[Tynskel]

Actually I'm saying the global meta doesn't exist. It is an illusion created by mass communication. There are only local metas.

I mostly agree with this... except for one case....

the Darkwyn 'Ard Boyz list...

Has anyone defeated that list?!? I have not seen anyone on BoLS say so.

[Melissia]

Yes, it does. Make a take-all-comers list and play it well, and you will become better than someone whom builds lists specifically to destroy one enemy and then changes his/her list every matchup.

[Madness]

From a sociological point of view tho, globalization will eventually happen, people will eventually start sharing tips on youtube on how to make a popular list work, a sort of walkthrough for premade lists. It has happened on most fronts, it will eventually catch up.

[Cryl]

Make a take-all-comers list and play it well, and you will become better than someone whom builds lists specifically to destroy one enemy and then changes his/her list every matchup.

Totally agree with this. The trick is getting a nice all-comers list that you're comfortable with and enjoy playing

[Renegade]

The real trick is to build a list that your comfortable with and learning to play it well. The game plays you as much as you play the game.
The meta game only counts as far as it works on any weakness that you have and the strengths of your opposition.
Knowing what build suits your style is far more important than what the meta game is, and if your good with it, it can disrupt it.

[Lord Azaghul]

Actually I'm saying the global meta doesn't exist. It is an illusion created by mass communication. There are only local metas.

Well said sir!

I couldn't agree more. This a couple of locals who like to talk metagame, and how one must have such and such unit to win. I thrash them everytime with my standard all-comers. WHY? I don't mech everything. So my opponents have thrown tons of points into anti mech, and not much in the way of dealing with mass troops, or an all comers. Yes you have your three vets squads in venteddas, but I have autocannons and a bunch of 10 man squads with melta bombs...

Play to your local game rather then to the internet community.
I even think you'll be better in Ard Boyz that way.

[therealjohnny5]

Yes, it does. Make a take-all-comers list and play it well, and you will become better than someone whom builds lists specifically to destroy one enemy and then changes his/her list every matchup.

agreed, it's important to play tactically. Cheese spamming will only get you so far. i see few people making a list and sticking to it and play testing it for awhile.


Well said sir!

I couldn't agree more. This a couple of locals who like to talk metagame, and how one must have such and such unit to win. I thrash them everytime with my standard all-comers. WHY? I don't mech everything. So my opponents have thrown tons of points into anti mech, and not much in the way of dealing with mass troops, or an all comers. Yes you have your three vets squads in venteddas, but I have autocannons and a bunch of 10 man squads with melta bombs...

Play to your local game rather then to the internet community.
I even think you'll be better in Ard Boyz that way.

word, there most certainly is a meta-game, but it's easily countered by a solid all-comers list. all i have to do is go down to the local GW to see IG mech after IG mech army. Melta spam , lots. it's all there and will change accordingly as th Meta changes. and that coincides with the global meta so it's not just local. that being said it's important to know what trends in games if you're going to build a solid all comers or plan to be successful with a niche army. If all you play is the meta game trends i won't say it'll make you a worse player, bc that all depends on how you play tactically, i will say it tends to be rather one sided and most importantly IMO, unimaginative.

[RocketRollRebel]

Yes, it does. Make a take-all-comers list and play it well, and you will become better than someone whom builds lists specifically to destroy one enemy and then changes his/her list every matchup.

I hear ya. My only problem is that I have a hard time making major changes to my list once I find one that I like and get very comfortable with.

[Subject Keyword]

Allow me to quote Sun Tzu;


Win!
I always wondered why that didn't happen more frequently on this site...

[Sir Biscuit]

Funny thing about the metagame...

I hear all these people saying "I thrash people who think they're great at the metagame because I bring a list they aren't prepared for!" Well, guess what, you're BOTH playing the metagame. They're just doing it worse than you are.

The "metagame" is very real and exists on multiple levels. First, you have your local gaming group level. There is also the "national" (or international, but we're mostly talking the competitive US scene here) level. We all understand our local metagames, so let me define the "national" metagame. Most simply put, this is a knowledge of effective units, tactics, and list builds that have been effective in the past and you will commonly run into in the future, against opponents from any region that you may or may not have played before.

The question posed is whether or not planning your army list and playstyle to counter these builds makes you a better or worse player. The answer is actually both. You MUST have at least some knowledge of the metagame if you want to play a competitive army, otherwise you'd be building lists in the dark. Make no mistake, you can create an effective list without min/maxing the units in your codex, but the fact remains that there are some units that are just BAD. Taking Penal Legionnaires because you want melee in your guard list not only shows that you are bad at efficient building, but that you have no idea of what kind of melee resistance you are going to face. Taking no anti-tank weapons against Orks because they seem like a big footslogger army is a horrible mistake. You MUST metagame to succeed.

Good players think about these kinds of things when listbuilding and deploying their army. It's also why good players build all comers lists, and the reason WHY they are good all comers lists is because they are built with the metagame in mind. Just any list can run over a poorly built foot eldar list, so you don't need to prepare for that. You need to prepare for the big challenges, the Nob Bikerz, the dual lash, the vetspam guard. And it's entirely possible to build a list that can compete with any and all of those, and that same list will work very well against stranger and less optimal builds.

That being said, there is a point you can reach where the metagame will turn against you. When you are sure you know the best units' from your dex, and when you stop experimenting. This is a fools' move. Those powerful builds, those amazing armies that trounce tournaments and make the internet commenter’s scream of cheese are list that were built by innovative players. Nob Bikerz weren't discovered because the internet analyzed the codex the moment it came out and came up with them, but because a dedicated player realized how devastating they could be with the right loadout. You will NEVER find the actual best lists online, because the internet is necessarily one step behind the actual tournament scene. The next ultimate combination; like all the others, will be put online only after it rocks a tournament, not before. Think about that.

So, what do we have in the end? Playing the Metagame is required to play effectively play this game at its highest levels, but innovative play has to be coupled with it in order to be truly great.

That's my take on it, at least.

[Lerra]

Has anyone defeated that list?!? I have not seen anyone on BoLS say so.

Plenty of people have defeated that list and others like it - it's really not that strong against a balanced metagame. It was so successful in 'ard Boyz because the lists that do the best against The Leafblower did not qualify for the last round (Tau, Daemons, Drop Pod Marines, etc). Darkwynn was facing almost exclusively IG, Ork, Space Marines, and Eldar lists, with few variations of the lists within those codices. None of those lists could deal with The Leafblower while going second.

If you pit The Leafblower up against a normal set of tournaments lists, it won't do nearly as well. It's still a strong list, but certainly not unbeatable.

[Madness]

So if I make my army not considering what my opponents are currently using but trying to face generic threats I'm an idiot?

[Sir Biscuit]

Are you talking to me?

If you are playing at a local game store, prepare for local threats. If you are going to a big multi-state or even just multi-store tounrament, prepare for generic threats. That's why I pointed out that there are two levels of metagame, "local" and "national". Use the one that applies.

I personally think it's better to build a list that you would use against a "national" metagame. That way, you can get more experience with the units and combinatins that work for you in preperation for when it really counts: at a big tourney.

Regardless, even when you build to face "generic threats" you are playing the metagame. Obviously.

[Lerra]

I usually build to face generic threats, and then tweak it to make sure I can deal with the 5-10 best players in my area. My all-comers list can't deal with 3+ land raiders very well, but my list for local play is built to deal with that threat. We also have a lot of monoliths locally - if I wasn't tweaking for the metagame, I wouldn't run anything above S8 in the army (Monoliths are immune to the melta special rule). After I got curbstomped by triple Black Templar land raiders and Necrons with 3 monoliths, I added more lascannons to the army. If there weren't any BT or Necron players in the area, I wouldn't have gotten curbstomped and I wouldn't have changed my list.

[Madness]

I play an army I changed very little since second edition, and I have it mostly based on fluffy decision (which brought me more plasma than I probably should), and I use it everywhere, I play open, light competitive tournaments (no serious circuits, I usually just hang out in those occasions) and inside gaming clubs (no one plays in stores where I live).

And personally I almost always have a good experience, it's just a matter of adding dramatic and color commentary to anything that happens.

I try to win, but if fate or incapacity prevents me to, I'd rather lose my way than win any other.

[RealGenius]

I mostly agree with this... except for one case....

the Darkwyn 'Ard Boyz list...

Has anyone defeated that list?!? I have not seen anyone on BoLS say so.

It is definitely beatable. I think JWolf beat it twice (in a slightly different incarnation) while the both of them were playing Adepticon Gladiator practice games. It might have been one draw, one win? I don't recall.

Although hard to say it was the list really, since the Adepticon Gladiator missions are pretty non-standard for 40k.

[Kahoolin]

Regardless, even when you build to face "generic threats" you are playing the metagame. Obviously.I don't think that's true at all. Metagaming in terms of list building means responding in advance to a specific threat that you believe you are likely to face. Generic threats are by definition not specific. Building a list in response to generic threats is just strategy. It is simply playing the game, not the metagame.

That's my point though: Metagames are all by definition specific to areas/events. I think people are starting to confuse simply knowing what different unit's capabilities are and accounting for the possibility of facing them as metagaming. That is not metagaming, that is simply experience and strategy, i.e. playing the game.

Knowing that in a typical game I am likely to face some armour and/or some infantry and building my list to handle that eventuality as best I can is NOT metagaming. It is playing the game. Believing that I will face multiple units of vets in chimeras with melta and building my list to smash them IS metagaming. It reduces my list's effectiveness against generic threats because I have focused on a specific threat that I believe I will encounter in my area. It is a risk based on my belief.

The illusion of the global metagame poses the danger that players (particularly inexperienced ones) will build their model collection to encounter specific threats that they are in fact unlikely to encounter. If you play a lot of tourneys then fine, to be a successful tourney player you must keep up with the tourney metagame. But even that is regional. The tourney circuit in the US (or UK, or Italy or whatever) is not global.

[Sir Biscuit]

What we have here is a failure of definitions. Metagaming is planning your list and strategy with threats, specific or general in mind. When you build a list and include meltaguns to help kill heavy armor, you are not just playing the game, you are thinking above and beyond and determining what will make your list competitive. (Either in a friendly way or a tournament way.)

This is just my point: Building a list in response to generic threats is not just strategy. It IS using the metagame. That's what the metagame is: a collection of generic threats that you should be prepared for, because of their effectiveness.

What you are talking about is List Tailoring, which is when a player constructs an army for the express purpose of defeating a specific list/build. While yes, this is metagaming, it is metagaming the the narrowest sense.

Good lists that are built with the metagame in mind are lists that take into account the various "hard" lists and has a way to fight them. This means, believe it or not, that armies built with a strong knowledge of the metagame are the most balanced armies. They are armies that have been built with the power builds in mind, and the power builds are all different. An player that really pays attention to the metagame builds a list that can stop hordes, deal with marines, pop high armor, and control the battlefield. A metagame army is balanced. Perhaps this is the problem: people think that a metagame list means a list that is built to specifically counter the latest build. Bull****. That kind of list, in fact, ignores the metagame. It sacrifices too much in order to take out a threat that may not even appear.

I'm going to be blunt: it is impossible to ignore the metagame unless you are literally an idiot, who never notices trends in his games. You CANNOT ignore it. The metagame is not some mythical overforce that reigns on high and decrees specific builds. It is the subtle changes we make to our lists to make them more strategically viable. It's when we swap out the second heavy flamer on a land speeder, because we need more anti-mech. It is when we build a different army for a tournament than for a game against a newbie friend. That's all metagame.

[RealGenius]

I'm going to be blunt: it is impossible to ignore the metagame unless you are literally an idiot, who never notices trends in his games. You CANNOT ignore it.... It is when we build a different army for a tournament than for a game against a newbie friend. That's all metagame.

Right, technically list building is meta-gaming because selecting what you bring is beyond the 5-7 game turns of 40k that are played. But I'd almost put list building or optimizing as a sub-set of meta-gaming. I see meta-gaming as choosing which Codex or which type of army in said Codex you'll use as meta-gaming.

"Global metagame" is an interesting term, but I'm not sure how much benefit you really get from studying the entirety of 40k played, except for interesting discussions on how 5th edition changed 40k and such.

Much more valid strategically is your own gaming environment. While some people will have success with lists from the net, they can just as easily be a huge hindrance depending on the local armies played. I've got no problem with people playing or using lists they've seen online and I think they are valuable for learning the game. "My first list sucked, but this list I got online was better. Why did it work so much better?"

The "why" is important, but when you are starting out you aren't ready for that yet; you gotta just get your feet wet. All the better to do it with a decent list than something terrible that puts you at a huge disadvantage because you don't yet know any better.

I'm lucky to live in a town with a very dynamic gaming environment. At any one time people that participate in local tournaments can usually bring any of two or more armies. Not knowing what others will be playing makes for metagaming interesting. For example, there is a tournament this weekend. Because of the Ork Deffrolla change, a lot of people are bringing Orks. (For the second half of last year I didn't see any Orks at tournaments, so seeing a lot of Orks out is quite a change.) Well, what about the people that don't have Ork armies to bring? Marine armies go on the shelf and out come the DE Lance spammers.

And when you take the local environment into account, it still comes down to the games you'll play at the tournament. I remember playing in a tournament that was 95% Marines, CSM and IG. What opponents did I end up playing? Nids, Necrons, Nids.

[Jwolf]

It is definitely beatable. I think JWolf beat it twice (in a slightly different incarnation) while the both of them were playing Adepticon Gladiator practice games. It might have been one draw, one win? I don't recall.

Although hard to say it was the list really, since the Adepticon Gladiator missions are pretty non-standard for 40k.

I trashed the 2250 point version twice and beat it once on Sunday. I don't know of anyone else who has voluntarily played it 3 times in a row. The list is designed to suck all the fun out of 40K, and it's pretty efficient for doing so, but it's beatable.

We've reviewed his list and made it tougher for the Adepticon Gladiator scenarios; should be fun to give him another kicking on Thursday. :)

And I agree that there is not a global metagame, but there are trends that tend to be consistent across a significant portion of local metagames.

[DarkLink]

A global meta arises from the statistical averages of many local metas (not to sound technical or anything:rolleyes:).

Local metas have small populations, anywhere from a few to a few dozen players (or maybe more). What types or armies and units are used will be skewed based on what armies and units local players play, and what the player's skill level is.

Global metas, on the other hand, represents general trends in local metas. In 5th, vehicles got better. Overall, local metas started to use more and more vehicles. Thus, the global meta became "mech is good".


There is a disconnect between global and local meta. If there are no IG players locally, you don't need to worry about leafblower lists, even though the internets discuss things like that all the time.

The global meta simply represents what would happen if there were thousands of local players, with a very, very wide range of armies and units used. The entire spectrum of army lists would be represented in the global meta.

A local meta is simply the global meta, with certain aspects of 40k not represented for one reason or another. But both local and global metas do exist.

[Kahoolin]

What you are talking about is List Tailoring, which is when a player constructs an army for the express purpose of defeating a specific list/build. While yes, this is metagaming, it is metagaming the the narrowest sense.You could put it like that, but the way I see it your definition of metagaming is so broad as to be useless for any reasoned discussion. I, for example have difficulty differentiating between what you call metagaming and the actual game. 40k is a wargame, and like all games it has essential elements that a player cannot ignore, one of which is strategy, which in 40k is expressed by list selection. I don't think this is part of the metagame. A metagame is the game outside the game. List selection for general strategic purposes based on knowledge of army and unit performance is not outside the game, it is an essential part of the game, the strategic element. It seems to me (though I could be misunderstanding you) that you define "metagaming" as being any sort of growth in a player's strategic acumen.

Now I'm not saying my definition of metagaming is any more correct than yours necessarily, but I am saying that it is narrower and therefore more useful for discussion. Not only that, I would suggest that "list tailoring" is a lot closer to what most of the community means when they use the term metagaming. This definition may or not be correct (whatever that means ;)), but it is in common usage.


I'm going to be blunt: it is impossible to ignore the metagame unless you are literally an idiot, who never notices trends in his games. You CANNOT ignore it. The metagame is not some mythical overforce that reigns on high and decrees specific builds. It is the subtle changes we make to our lists to make them more strategically viable. It's when we swap out the second heavy flamer on a land speeder, because we need more anti-mech. It is when we build a different army for a tournament than for a game against a newbie friend. That's all metagame.Again, only in the broadest sense.


What we have here is a failure of definitions.That's right. My definition is something like list tailoring, as you pointed out. Your definition is something like the general strategic growth of a player over time. I still don't agree that strategy is part of the metagame; General strategy is part of the game itself.

I would like to refine what I mean by metagame though, in response to your excellent points. I'm starting to think metagames only exist around competitive play. List tailoring in response to tournament trends for the purpose of successfully competing in tournaments, now THAT'S metagaming to me, if anything is. Refining your all-comer's list in casual games for no real purpose other than to get better at the game is not metagaming in any useful sense: It's just enjoying the strategic element of the game itself.

[Polonius]

Clearly, there is some form of national meta game. There's a difference between "I know I shoudl include anti-tank in my 1850 tournament list" and "I should be prepared to deal with three landraiders." One is so general that it's probably not really meta-gaming, the other is responding not just to a theoretical threat, but a known combination.

Fretting about Nob bikers is silly if nobody will bring them to a tournament, but being aware that such a unit exists is smart for a tournament player when you don't know what to expect.

Building lists that can deal with power armor, or including units like Fleet Officers or Inquisitors w/ Mystics are primarily responses to things that enemies bring.

Denying that there is any global or national meta game simply ignores the very real fact that people are aware of what to expect, in general, at a tournament they've never been to before. How reliable that information, and how useful it is, are much better topics of discussion.

I think that the best way to approach the metagame as a way of deciding what types of lists you can expect to see. Without the metagame, we wouldn't know how important anti-transport firepower is. I mean, absent the metagame, transports are simply an option, like any other. Likewise, knowing that landraiders are a real threat is a fact of the metagame, not of simple rules knowledge. There is only one vehicle with rear armor 14 (aside from the monolith), and it's the meta game that tells us to expect 1/3 of all lists to rock at least one.

The meta-game is how you know to fear Nob bikers (a quirky unit build), but not nurgle raptors. It's why most people don't worry about monoliths (because they're rare) but do worry about dreadnoughts.

So, in sum, I don't think that playing the metagame makes you a worse player. I think that basing lists off of what you read on the internet, and not what you experience playing the game, makes you a worse player. I think substituting your judgment and experience for those of people playing in very different communities is unwise. But knowing the metagame? Just one tool of many in the smart players bag.

[scadugenga]

So, in sum, I don't think that playing the metagame makes you a worse player. I think that basing lists off of what you read on the internet, and not what you experience playing the game, makes you a worse player. I think substituting your judgment and experience for those of people playing in very different communities is unwise.


I could not agree more with this statement. If people spent more time actually playing the game first, and learning to crawl before they walk, instead of trying to use all the 'net "experience" they can search for to substitute for a lack of real on-the-table experience, there'd be more fun had by all, I think.

[Bedroom General]

Actually I think that it is a global meltagame atm!