Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I've been noticing more and more the contrast between GW and other games (such as magic). They really seem to want to keep people in the dark about what actually does well at a tournament. Typically they'll post the winning army list but that's it. I suppose you can find out what races generally do well. So you know things like "space marines must be good", but I don't think there is really a "metagame" going in 40K.
I actually like that. It means I don't have to feel like my army is second rate if it would turn out that there is an army type that wins in my race and everybody knows what it is.
What I'm wondering if it's just that I'm in the dark, and everybody else knows what's winning.
Well for 40k everyone knows that Nidzilla armies tend to do well, and mech eldar and tau do well.
There are other example for both game systems.
I think one big difference between magic tourneys and Warhammer is the composition score. Magic applauds cheese, and warhammer enforces a rule of balance by actually giving it a points value.
There's actually no longer a Army Composition points system for Fantasy Battle (not sure about 40k or LOTR).
I think it is a good thing that warhammer does not have a meta game following.
I gave up playing magic competitively because of the meta game "net deck" generation.
With magic, the current "cycle" of cards will have 6-8 decks which will be called the "Gauntlet" decks.
These are collectively agreed to be the "best of the best" the current set(s) have to offer.
If you try and be creative and stray outside of these decks, you will not win any tournaments. period.
Then within the "Gauntlet" decks you have good and bad match-ups.
If you play a Gauntlet deck at a tournament and are drwan against your "bad match-up", you will 99% of the time auto lose.
Do we really want Warhammer going this way?
Sharing ideas on composition on forums is healthy, but net lists and meta gaming would lead to everyone playing only one or two armies.
There are of course powerful army lists and "power gamers" out there (Skaven, Brets and Lizardmen), But Warhammer gives us the opportunity to be creative with our selections and still be competitive.
The Herts & Essex Blood Bowl League - 30 active members and still looking to expand!
Check out our website at http://www.hebbl.co.uk
^^ This guy know's what he's talking about. Went to quite a few MTG tournies many years ago, and it was indeed auto decided before you played most time. Ended up only playing in Booster Tournies as they were at least fun.
Warhammer gives everyone the chance to be competetive with any army, but at the same time you still have armies you hope you don't play. I, for example, am praying to the fickle gods not to face a Queen Kalida Tomb Kings army, asmy skinks would not have a good day at the GT.
Another way that GW can keep the tournament armies down is by constantly changing the rules through codexes. This makes you take different stragedies to be in the tournament scene. Magic can't do this because there is no fixed rules for the 5 color armies and their multiple designs other than the cost. Mainly though Magic suffers from cards just being too powerful and other cards too weak.
yes I think GW does not talk much about what army compositions are powerful because they want the game to be friendly, plus they want you to find out for yourself on what armies are good, furthering your model buying potential.
But as Frozencore said those lists pretty much dominate tournaments.
Also in warhammer, terrain and dice also effect the result making for some funny chance things. In magic theres the chance to not get a card because of the draw, but it has IMO a good chance of getting the card you need because if you deck consists of a lot of good cards then getting different cards usually evens things out.
Dice on the other hand is a hit or miss thing. While drawing bad will always give something to your stradegy.
I'm kind of tired, but tried I to think it out carefully? . . . I hope.
The big difference between Magic and Warhammer, is that in Magic, the ability to cheese your deck out is expected, and the limitations are placed by the designers who try to design the game so that nothing it particularly over the top in comparison to everything else. In Warhammer, the designers just make sure that something isn't completely broken, then its the player's perogative to not cheese their list out.
Consider too, that Magic has a lot more tournaments every year, which makes having a competitive deck all the more important. For War, unless you live in an area were GT's are held regularly, you might only play in a handful of tournaments a year, so the need for a cheesy list and the development of cheesy lists over the net is less of a priority.
Well it sounds like you guys don't know what the "gauntlet" army lists are so I'm not alone. True you know some races tend to do well and others tend to lose. But you don't know exactly what's in them.
And I've always at least imagined that they publish the winning army list in the hopes that everyone is ready to beat it next year.
Also there is a lot more going on in warhammer than there is in magic. Now I play magic regularly with my friends, I am not knocking it. It is a great game and very fun. But being good in magic pretty much only requires you to build a better deck than someone else. IN warhammer not only do you have to build a list, but you have to play with it too. In both games you have to know who to target with which spell or unit, but warhammer adds something else. Movement. The reason why this matters is because anyone can take a good magic deck and win with it, but if you take a good warhammer army and if you don't know how to use it on the battlefield, or if your opponent can play better than you can you will still lose, despite how good your list is.
It is not a valid comparison to try to link the Magic and 40k metagames too closely.
1) The Magic metagame change every 3-4 months due to the release of a new set. Folks have full access to this new set the next day.
In 40k, we paint and build armies that take much longer to assemble. Codexes have a similar release schedule as MTG releases, but they only change one army, not available options for each army.
So the metagame in 40k changes much more slowly
2) Magic can reduce the luck factor to nearly nil. 60 cards/deck, 4 of each card you "must" draw, 18-22 lands and maybe some library search ability. Sure, there is luck (and bad shuffling) but a good deck runs the same 95% of the time you play it.
40k both has far more and far less luck. It certainly has FAR more variables
-Far More: Dice, and lots of them.
-Far Less: Unless you play Deepstriking, your entire deck is laid out during deployment and fully available.
3) 40k has far more variables than MTG:
- Your army has tons more effective options than MTG (If Lightening bolt is available, why use Shock?).
- Your opponnent's army might not be a forgone conclusion as to build (Oh look, an island and a swamp, must be Psychotog Control*...).
- Your opponent's playstyle (and yours) actually affects the way two similar armies will function
- 3D battlefield vs. what is essentially a 2 threaded mono-dimensional surface (flyers, non-flyers)
That all being said, yeah, there are some standard builds, but they don't rise up and suddently shift the metagame for 4 months until a new card is printed to kill it.
* Yes, my old tourney days were when Psychotog Upheaval was king of Standard Block Constructed. Actually, I go back to Fires of Yavimaya as my first "Net Deck"
RecklessFable's Journey to Mediocrity (Painting an IG army)
I've been addicted to World of Tanks lately and neglecting my IG... But it is so... much... fun!