At the end of the day, this hobby is about you and your enjoyment. It is also about how you play, how you react to situations, and how you like to see battles unfold.
I am a reasonable Orks player. I am not the best, but I find that I definitely win more than I lose.
I am a terrible Space Marine player. I have a reasonable army, but my style just doesn't work with the army. Playing them the way that I am told to play them means I win more games, and changing the list to suit my style means I win more games, but at the end of the day, what people tell me to do isn't right for me.
This is a lesson learnt from the Nova Event I ran, Centurion.
You need to, as a player, assess what each unit does beyond what Kirby, Stelek, Me, and everyone else tells you they should do.
Case in point.
With Orks, my play style is very aggressive, and very horde-ish. I run at you as fast as possible, giggling when unfortunate things happen, then generally breaking your army under a weight of attacks. Yes, I play Horde Orks. Yes, they work. Yes, I win. Internet says No.
When I had loaned my army to Archnomad, he showed me, through his play style, a completely new concept for Ork game play. If you play a reserved game (not Reserves as in deployment, but "not aggressive mayhem" reserved), the army functions completely differently. The units that you would use in a meat grinder become more effective as a deterrent. If the opponent isn't focused on killing and separating the army, because they physically can't, most generals will not be able to destroy you the way they normally would. Billy played the current #1 Australian player and only lost because he lost sight of the primary win condition. He didn't do his movement correctly and lost the game. Simple mistake he will never forget. The army was still standing at 60% capacity at Turn 5. The Internet says you will be tabled at Turn 3. Why is this so?
Because of the way that people think, and the mindsets that they have, opinions and play styles are naturally skewed to what works for them.
Now as players, look at your army, and consider what you can try that contravenes all that you know and understand about your game play, but might actually make you more successful.
For instance: (YMMV on these ideas)
- Dual Autarch with Fusion Guns in a Mechdar list.
- Kustom Mega Blasta spam Orks
- Buying a cheap-ass HQ instead of the "standard build HQ" - eg: just a single barebones inquisitor in a GK list to save the 150 points for another GKSS squad
- Running mass scouts in a C:SM army to save points for more toys
- Working with Infiltrate units as force multipliers instead of killing machines.
And many more.
These are all ideas that the internet will laugh at me for, and you will get into endless arguements on maths if they happen to work for you, but all of these are worth the investigation.
Read, learn, conceptualise from the e-celeb big guns, but their word is not gospel. The list that won Adepticon would not have been approved by any of the e-celebs, but look where it ended up. Your own understanding needs to be part of your gaming process.
*note : for new players, reading and understanding and playing good armies comes first, testing comes second. There is no point in trying out infiltrating Orks as a deterrant before you really understand how the army functions as a codex*
Logging you in...
Messanger of Death · 727 weeks ago
Messanger of Death · 727 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 727 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 727 weeks ago
Kirby made it perfectly - it's a good list, but not "Internet great".
This is the level that you as a player need to aim for. Something that's good but has a certain zing that fits you and your personality.
Keith · 727 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 727 weeks ago
Archy · 727 weeks ago
NEVER FORGET.
Nikephoros · 727 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 727 weeks ago
I like your premise fester and was actually writing a post about it but the core concept of sites like 3++ and YTTH is to do a lot of the list thinking for you and personally 3++ aims to show it to you so it's not a black box. This teaches you to do the same. At the same time there's tactics, discussion, etc. to apply these thought processes, etc.
I personally don't feel that I tell people what is good or bad. I certainly do make assessments and there are certain books that I have quite strong opinions on (i.e. the older ones) and whilst this isn't the only way or in any form gospel, it is based upon deep analytical thought and generally a lot of experience. You may be able to make unit X or army A work for you at a competitive level and I may disagree but if those experiences with unit X or Army A can't be backed up or replicated, it's the telling other people to use them/buy them that is often an issue.
I've been trying to write a post about this lately (optimisation in army lists) but haven't been able to make the point come across as clearly as I wish though hopefully this helps.
Again though, good points by fester. We are here to guide you :) .
abortedsoul · 727 weeks ago
BTW, great article fester. I mean, kindof obvious, but it did need saying i suppose.
DimmyK · 727 weeks ago
Malkov · 727 weeks ago
I like the bit at the end talking about non-optimal units. People seem to forget sometimes, that a list doesn't just fall together perfectly. Sometimes you just don't have the points to field X unit in its most awesome form without sacrificing something more vital. Sometimes you have some pts left over and can pump a unit beyond how you'd normally field it.
Not the best example in the world, but I'm a big fan of Blast Pistols on Warriors. Now, most every DE player on the planet is going to compare the cost to Ravagers or Trueborn. (5/6 of those slots are filled, not relevant) Now I know this isn't a "bad" option, but the internets are constantly telling me otherwise. Oh well, I know 2 Lance shots are good, and Kirby and Steelk know too... so that's good enough for me ^_~
The Black Jackal · 727 weeks ago
Dave · 727 weeks ago
General Smooth · 727 weeks ago
Greggles · 727 weeks ago
I actually feel its fun to use a random army generator, or use some dice to figure out how many of each type you'll take...just to mix it all up.
Joe · 727 weeks ago
However the recent internet trend of discussing 'meta', 'builds' 'redundancy' and so on is essentially attempting to magic-ify 40k
This is bad as i) mtg is about generating money from disposable product and ii) because 40k is a tabletop minature game with all of the 'inaccuracies' mentioned initially. Attempting to look at it like an MtG game is doomed to fail. In addition the attitude of some (the passive aggressive anally retentive mtg attitude or PAARMA) is totally counterintuitive to a wargame which is supposed to be a social activity.
Not to say this didn't happen before, but with the proliferation of the internet and 'competitiveness' it may split the community in two - people who play a game and people who want to play mtg with toy soliders - in which case play warmachine!
(*exceptions for pacts, poison etc)
Marshal Wilhelm · 727 weeks ago
Wusword77 · 727 weeks ago
There is one battlefield in magic but, using cards, it can be modified to help you out. Cards like Propaganda (Blue from Stronghold if i remember right) or Teferi's Moat (Invasion White/blue) make it difficult for creatures to attack you. Cards such as Millstone (Artifect from various editions) can eliminate decks from the field while others allow you to replenish your deck with cards from the graveyard. Your number of options is based on what color(s) you choose to play, with each color playing to a certain type of tactic (Red burn, Blue control, green beatdown, white weenie, black control for example). Lets not even talk about playing type 1, type 2, limited, draft or constructed because those elements change the game quite a bit. You can even change the "win" condition of the game with cards like Coalition Victory (Invasion Gold card) or Test of Endurance (Judgement White)
Finally the player himself is fallible just like in 40k. I've beaten plenty of people with great decks because they didn't understand how cards work together. MTG has just as many factors as a game like 40k, it doesn't seem that way because the games are played in a different fashion.
40k can be played competitively, the casual players just need to learn to accept that people will play the game competitively. Many of the ideas from MTG also work for 40k because MTG uses basic strategy at it's core.
Daybreak · 727 weeks ago
I also don't see how applying these MTG strategies to 40k is at all related to the trend of "generating money from disposable product" (especially pertinent since that applies only to Limited, somewhat to Standard, and not at all to the eternal formats like Legacy, Vintage and Commander). As a player of said eternal formats, I view my 40k armies very much like my eternal decks. I'm going to own them for years, tweak them as I go, and they'd damn well better have some sort of gameplan in their build. I fail to see why this is a bad thing.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks you haven't given any reason to think that looking at 40k like an MTG game is "doomed to fail." Sure, certain concepts like mana curve don't translate over, but you'd be stupid to think there's a literal translation of strategies. Basic strategic choices like redundancy and focus are game-independent, and what you're seeing now is that these very principles that work so successfully in other customizable games like MTG are also working in 40k.
I'm honestly somewhat surprised to see someone on here offer the false duality between those who are competitive, and those who "play a game" or view 40k as a "social activity." One main reason for this is that I personally see it as both, so I can't quite grasp the mindset that competitive play is somehow undesirable. Sadly, you have done little to defend your case to the contrary.
Warboss Stalin · 727 weeks ago
abortedsoul · 727 weeks ago
HurricaneGirl · 727 weeks ago
I run lists that would not have 'internet approval'. On paper people tend to tell me it's trash. When I put it on the table, it wins. Sometimes the way you think, and the way certain units work or synergize with one another just works well together. Sometimes the dice just roll what they need to when they need to. And sometimes it may not work at all. Such is the way of a game that relies on chance.
N.I.B. · 727 weeks ago
Because most people spend a lot more time on the forums than playing 40K. I listen to a few guys that rarely post, above the internet dwellers with an compulsary urge to have an opinion about anything 40K-related without a lot of games to back them up.
Too many believe in short cuts, they read YTTH and the likes and think they're in the know, so they throw away what they enjoy and pick up what works for someone else. I always enjoy their looks of disbelief and bitterness when I crush them with nids.
Warboss Stalin · 727 weeks ago
ming from b&c · 725 weeks ago