Print

[Skeith]

Go wikipedia!
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.

I'm in a metaverse of my own with my idea of it then

[Mr. Universe (Jayne)]

So, to clarify:

If a lot of players take Space Marines at my LGS/GW and I write a TAC list, I will take into acount the amount if Marines I am LIKELY to face, and gear my list more towards Meq/Teq with them in mind, even though it will still be able to deal with other armies aswell.

Its half way between TAC and tooled.

[enderwiggin]

So, to clarify:
Its half way between TAC and tooled.

Yep.
Which in turn could theoretically be meta'd by the SM players.

For example, if they all played infantry heavy assault lists, but one knew that the upcoming tournament saw lots of Anti-MEQ weaponry, then they might take dreadnoughts to beat the assault lists which also would stand a better chance at the anti-Meq stuff that he could expect to see.

[Lord Zambia]

1) Unfluffy: Taking a list that should never happen in the 40k universe, despite codex legality. 4 Rune Priests will rarely be involved in a single struggle and would especially dislike being too much alike, so quad-JotWW fits here. Also things like a Nids force without Rippers, any Guard army fielding solely Vets as their troops, Daemons running both Khorn and Tzeentch units, or Tau bringing a Shas'O to a 500-point game. Note that this does NOT mean a list is powerful, in fact most "fluffy" choices have basis in general tactics and efficiency.

I've taken a single Infantry Platoon in my IG army, which would hopefully be maxed out, but the rest of my troop choices will be vets. Its a Vostroyan army, so I thought it would be allright

And most 500pt games, I couldn't take a Shas'O due to stat restrictions (Combat Patrol, School League rules)

SO your saying anyone who uses tyranids without rippers is "anti fluff"?

Also, with regards to all veteran guard, have you heard of the armageddon steel legion. They have survived alot and been through heaps, therefore it makes sense to take an all veteran army.

But regardless, i agree with pretty much everything else listed. A small patrol consisting of 3 or so squads should NOT be led by the most experienced type of Tau Battlesuit Commander, who should be off doing his army. Similarly, Tau should be forced to take a SHas'o in large point games (2000 and above) because they have the most experience with that kind of thing.

So, to clarify:
Its half way between TAC and tooled.

Yep.
Which in turn could theoretically be meta'd by the SM players.

For example, if they all played infantry heavy assault lists, but one knew that the upcoming tournament saw lots of Anti-MEQ weaponry, then they might take dreadnoughts to beat the assault lists which also would stand a better chance at the anti-Meq stuff that he could expect to see.

In a way, he made his already balanced list even more suited to all corners in todays gaming society. This is good isnt it? he isnt tooling a list towards any particular thing, but just knows that somethings are popular now (for example, i know that in 1500 points 1 hammerhead is hardly enough to take down the amount of armoured vehicles which it may need to, and it can be wiped out quick, so i generally use 2...if i happen to be in a game against a footslogging guard army i could beat him considerably unless he brings them down early, but considering the same race could also bring 6+ heavy tanks to the table, i think that i may even need broadsides (btw i also have 2 AT suits)

Ok, time for me to sound stupid.

What is "The Metagame"?

Go wikipedia!
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.

But this isnt cheating. Its say using experience from non warhammer occurences to help you know what to do here. Its like say watching a documentary on how armies work with eachother in a slightly different way they had thought about it before, and they decided to try it out as a strategy. It could go really well, but it could go bad. Eitherway though, it isnt cheating.

[enderwiggin]

In a way, he made his already balanced list even more suited to all corners in todays gaming society. This is good isnt it? he isnt tooling a list towards any particular thing, but just knows that somethings are popular now.

Essentially, you have the correct idea here. I define the list building metagame as making a TAC list for the environment and not necessarily tooling (because you never fully tune for the meta game, you just build in some precautions, otherwise you'll find that environment turning on you at times).

[RFury]

I believe that cheesiness in 40k exists, but it is vastly overblown.  The perception of cheesiness almost always arises when a player is faced with a tactical situation that they don't know how to handle.  People never complain about tactics they can easily beat.  Compared to fantasy, 40k is fairly well balanced and even the weakest codices still have a decent chance of beating the newest if you build your army properly.

In my experience, most of the players who cry "cheese" are the ones that want to play in their comfort zone and they don't want the game to challenge them.  These players want to win with the same armies they used in 2002.

I'm not opposed to people playing with soft fluffy lists, but I resent being told that is the only way to have fun.

[Lord Zambia]

I believe that cheesiness in 40k exists, but it is vastly overblown.  The perception of cheesiness almost always arises when a player is faced with a tactical situation that they don't know how to handle.  People never complain about tactics they can easily beat.  Compared to fantasy, 40k is fairly well balanced and even the weakest codices still have a decent chance of beating the newest if you build your army properly.

In my experience, most of the players who cry "cheese" are the ones that want to play in their comfort zone and they don't want the game to challenge them.  These players want to win with the same armies they used in 2002.

I'm not opposed to people playing with soft fluffy lists, but I resent being told that is the only way to have fun.

Now this brings up very good points.

The thing i notice when players label either me or another player as "playing with a cheesy list" is when they pick a terrible all corners list. Me fielding 2 hammerheads in 1000pts is not cheesy, and i made it a very balanced list. I was against a guard army, who took 820ish points of guardsmen, command squads and vets and 3 lascannon sentinels. He outflanked with all 3 sentinels, practically letting my hammerheads have 2 turns free shooting (as i won the dice roll and chose to deploy first.) The thing is, it was "cheese" because what he considered his list to be all corners and balanced, there was no way he could win...so he cries "cheese"

I have played other games where i have used 2 hammerheads, and the guard player has used 4 leman russ battle tanks. I didnt have enough railguns to in, yet the same points limit. I didnt label the other guy as taking 4 battle tanks as cheese, because it was a smart tactical list he created, and it did well against the current army of Tau. What do i learn from getting thrashed by that many tanks? Put more emergence AT in an all corners list should i come up against a similar style of gamer again. I dont say "never playing that person again" because it usually is your fault you lost

Lord Zambia

[Khanaris]

You are playing Tau, though.  The book is too old for anyone to honestly call it "broken" in any respect.

There are people that I obliterated that I will never play again.  You don't have to lose to an army to see it as abusive.  It is the attitude and intent that sets it apart.  You can try to play a cheesed out army and still lose because you didn't understand what was supposed to make it so effective.

[Lord Zambia]

There are people that I obliterated that I will never play again.  You don't have to lose to an army to see it as abusive.  It is the attitude and intent that sets it apart.  You can try to play a cheesed out army and still lose because you didn't understand what was supposed to make it so effective.

This goes back to the "dealing with problematic players" thread started months back, back in september if i remember correctly. If you dont talk to the player explaining why his list lost, and explaining that the list wont win you the game, its you and your list working as one. If you do this, he might listen, and get better. If you dont he cant possibly get better.

You are playing Tau, though.  The book is too old for anyone to honestly call it "broken" in any respect.

age does not dictate whether something is broken or not. Nonetheless who suggested that it was in fact "broken"? does this mean any codex's released before the Tau 4th edition are also unbroken? I am not trying to get at you, i am just curious as to where these comments are coming from thats all.

[Crisis Vyper]

Ok, time for me to sound stupid.

What is "The Metagame"?

The big picture. As simple as that.

[Khanaris]

age does not dictate whether something is broken or not. Nonetheless who suggested that it was in fact "broken"? does this mean any codex's released before the Tau 4th edition are also unbroken? I am not trying to get at you, i am just curious as to where these comments are coming from thats all.

You have to understand how the books have changed.  The further a special rule in a codex diverges from the main rulebook, the more vulnerable it is to being exploited.  Many of the 3rd and 4th Edition books got away from the old 2nd Edition weirdness and tried to focus on a narrower range of statlines and in 4th the use of Universal Special Rules.

People rarely talk about Codex: Eldar as being broken.  Or Dark Angels.  Or the Inquisition books on their own.  Or even Tau.  They were not written with the same things in mind.  With 5th Edition, GW made a conscious decision to change the way the game was balanced.  USRs started to take a backseat again.  They added in extremely hard units and rules, albeit at a high cost.

That is not to say that the newer books are inherently broken compared with the old ones.  But they are not as resistant to exploitation by unscrupulous players.  When people say that a book is "cheesy", they are often referring to what happens when you squeeze it a little too hard for advantage.  Many of the new additions are still fair as long as the drawbacks GW intended are actually taking effect.  But when you build ultra-competitive lists to get around those drawbacks, suddenly the book stops being balanced against the older style.

[Lord Zambia]

So...Orks being a new army, hold an advantage over Tau being an older army (since last update)? Hence Space Marines, Nids, Orks and Eldar hold advantages over Tau, Necron, Dark eldar and Chaos, but not advantages over other Marines, Nids, Orks or eldar?

It kinda makes sense...but yes i see where your coming from when they decided things like "universal rules" to try and make it easier to remember and use rules, and to classify them generally.

So cheese does exsist, but it is easier to use cheese from the new codex's. I think thats what im thinking after reading your post. I have to say i cant dissagree with you, or moreso i can live with the statement you have made

Zambia

[HijiriOni]

Codex Creep has created alot of cheese.

It's kinda what I'm liking about warmachine for the time. All the armies are creeping together so all of them have their own cheese for beating everyone else. That and they provide consistent FAQS for everything. But there is no cookie cutter this combination beats everything ideal.

Theres probably a reason the last grand tournaments top 10 placers we're Orks and Chaos...and 1 Eldar player, nothing else.

[Archon Charybdis]

Codex Creep has created alot of cheese.

That's a separate debate altogether, however I'd direct you to Khanaris' post above. I'd argue that creep on an individual codex basis doesn't really exist-- most of the 5th ed codices are fairly balanced against each other. However, creep from 4th edition codices compared to 5th ed codices, in general, I would argue exists. As Khanaris pointed out, in 5th ed the prevalence of "death star" units with powerful rules has created more opportunities for cheesy armies.

[Skeith]

I believe that cheesiness in 40k exists, but it is vastly overblown.  The perception of cheesiness almost always arises when a player is faced with a tactical situation that they don't know how to handle.  People never complain about tactics they can easily beat.  Compared to fantasy, 40k is fairly well balanced and even the weakest codices still have a decent chance of beating the newest if you build your army properly.

Like beating Space Marines (with Ironclad Dread) with Wyches and Warriors only.