"Net Listing" Are you doing it? Have you done it?

[Ryzouken]

netlisting can be seen in every game. used to play Magic: The Gathering competitively. in 50 players, there were 6 differnt decks. mine, and the 5 standard netdecks at the time.

'Course, the first world champion- who went on to do it a couple more times later in his career- built his decks in the car ride on the way to the tournament.

 

Just because somethings the standard doesnt mean its the best in your hands, or the best fit for those hands for that matter. *shrugs*

We've a player (Case) in L5R (Legend of the Five Rings) that is joked about being a win condition unto himself (in addition to the 4 standard win conditions in the game) precisely because the man is likely able to pick up a deck of commons in a language he doesn't know and still win.

 

My take on netlists? They're a point to start from, and provide a point of commonality for internet discussion. It's hard to discuss how to tweak a take all comers list if you haven't any concrete examples of decks to beat. Exhaustive tactica analysis can only take you so far.

Case in point:

IG counter tactica argues you need lascannons (or fast moving melta guns) for Leman Russes, missiles for anything not named Leman Russ, and close combat units to deal with anything that has wounds in its profile. How do you then balance those needs at a given (we'll say 1500 points, since that's where I'm comfy and it's a good point value that imposes restrictions on list design) point level? You could devote 1/3 of your points to each need, but when the typical IG list isn't evenly split amongst the three unit types, you're likely to run into issues. Maybe you sink 1/2 your points in CC specialists and 1/4 in missiles and 1/4 in lascannons. Maybe this works for you! And then you run across the Necron AV 13 spam list where 3/4 of your army is nigh useless until those lascannons work. Or maybe you run into a super CC specialist army that turns half your points into useless gak since you can't win combat. Common netlists can help you balance your army and provide contingencies against specific, likely to be seen armies that would otherwise ruin your day. Without knowledge of the Ork Nob Biker lists, would we bother taking units like the IG Sanctioned Psykers (who provide silver bullet meta against this unit type) or psychic powers like Jaws (presumably also for nailing Tyranid Monsters to the wall.)

 

I don't advocate dumbly copying a netlist unit for unit, but I do advocate using them to assess the meta and develop answers to common dangerous lists.

[hmk17]

the biggest aspect of gaming is games clubs and gaming with friends, with the exception of practicing for tounaments theres no reason to lay netlists against your mates.. what do you learn?

as its been said the trial and error has been done, we know that netlist works, so the only reason must be becuase you want to kerbstomp your mates..

and what a jolly good friend you must be ^_^

 

And this is why people should learn to ask if it's going to be a tourney/competitive game or a fluffy game. If neither do that, then they are both equally at fault for assume-ing (see what I did there? ;)) that the other person was going to want to play the same kind of game. And this is why assumptions are bad...

 

Which brings me neatly to:

a game is for 2 or more people, it is in essence a moral contract between you and your opponent to have fun.. whats fun about a turn 2 victory?

 

I largely agree with you, but you are overlooking something.

Not everyone thinks the same things are fun. Some people have games with an actual story behind why their armies clash and some just meet up for a game. Some people like ham & pineapple pizza (heretics!), while other like pepperoni and onions. Just because you don't think something is fun, don't assume others don't think so.

 

Before a game you agree to a number of points, right? Or do you just assume that you both want to play with 3000 points?

When you do that, you also agree whether it's a tourney or fluffy game... There, problem resolved

 

That of course assumes the other person has the other or is willing to draw one up. Many people around my FLGS show up with just their tournament list and those models, the must win at all cost people. They will play anyone who wants a game, but adamantly state they are playing their tournament list because they need the practice. ;)

 

The real trick is that Fluff can be competitive and vice-versa. It's all about the player and what he wants to build/play.

 

 

As far as net listing, meh. I've played competitive CCG's for years and that practice has been rife there for well over a decade. When it comes to these lists, very few people take the time to learn the nuances of the list and its full capabilities. A few games that week before the tournament and they think they know it all, despite the lacking effort, blood, sweat and tears that went into the original. At that point it becomes less about the list and more about the player.

[Grey Mage]

I don't advocate dumbly copying a netlist unit for unit, but I do advocate using them to assess the meta and develop answers to common dangerous lists.

Ryzouken is doing it right.

[red_starrise]

Personally, no, I don't think I've ever used a net list, now that doesn't mean I haven't built lists that have similarities though, but that's just usually because the most common net lists for an army, typically, use some of the same tactics & those tactics are known to work, thus they are commonly used.

 

However, I personally build my own lists from T&E & what I like to see on the tabletop. For example, I very rarely use TWC in small games & I never field a wolf lord w/ TWM despite that being one of the most popular builds. I also don't razor spam my GHs or missile spam my LFs again, despite those being soooo popular. Just because that's not my play style & I don't particularly care for it. I take Blood Claws at all levels above 1500 pts because it's fluffy & because they're a (relatively) cheap unit for what they can do & the psychological impact they can have on opponents.

 

When I first got back into 40K after almost a 5 year hiatus I did look at net lists to get an idea of what works & what doesn't in this edition but I don't think I ever played any of the lists I found.

[Ryzouken]

I don't advocate dumbly copying a netlist unit for unit, but I do advocate using them to assess the meta and develop answers to common dangerous lists.

Ryzouken is doing it right.

I missed you too Grey Mage. :o

[thor1234]

I think I may jump in on this topic........

my opinion of the netlists is that, Yes to some degree they are good, as stated above, they provide us with a starting place, something to discuss, and with the hobby as expensive as it is, we all need a good starting point, whats good? whats bad? why is this so? etc...... this is no different to sitting in a pub or at your local club and discussing with friends/other gamers (in person), it only becomes a problem,and well makes the hobyby a bit dull, I've always used lists posted here as a starting point along the lines of " I never throught of that wargear combo" or "hey that synergy of units is cool!" my main reason for posting is in favour of neagativity of the netlist i'm afraid... soon I will be playing in a tournament, the organiser insists that all lists are public otherwise you loose points on the day, looking over the lists i noted all races represented, and got quite annoyed, there were three new necron lists IDENTICAL to the letter, 4 Dark Eldar lists that again were Identical with such minir changes its nt worth noting, and 5 BA lists ALL THE :D same! not to mention the lack flavour of the SW lists in a tournament of 50 players i am likley to end up playing one of these lists if not the same list and tactics moren than once! you might as well limit the field and play the same guy twice!

 

so there is my two cents........

[Yogi]

No one would complain about net lists if they weren't generally strong. That's the main thing. If they were all terrible like all foot blood claws, no one would complain. People get upset when they lose to what they may perceive as an inferior opponent with a list he didn't come up with.

 

That's it.

 

But the blame lies with the army book for having useless units. Or entire codexes.

[clanfield]

iv no problem with powerfull lists the thing that i dislike is the uber winz atitude and the whole makes it dull as a game

 

i think net lists do at times open your mind to new ideas which is good as a whole

[skrikspya]

iv no problem with powerfull lists the thing that i dislike is the uber winz atitude and the whole makes it dull as a game

 

i think net lists do at times open your mind to new ideas which is good as a whole

 

Completly agreed. I played a tournament not long ago vs some GK player who said he hated most (if not all) GK units he fielded. It was a strong list and he came 6th or so out of 30. But I, could not understand why he even played that army if he didn't like it. Just to win? For me it would suck out the fun to play something I didn't like just in order to improve your odds. That is, however , a problem with some players and not netlisting. Just take a look on these boards how many like to help out, discuss builds etc.

[Ryzouken]

I played a tournament...

There's your problem. People enter tournaments hoping to win. Want to play with fluffy and fun lists? Don't enter tournaments.

 

Hell, I take units I don't like from time to time to improve my tournament game. I can't stand the GW models for Sanctioned Psykers, but know I need them to counter Nob Bikes and certain other units. Luckily I like everything that's competitive in my SW...

[skrikspya]

I played a tournament...

There's your problem. People enter tournaments hoping to win. Want to play with fluffy and fun lists? Don't enter tournaments.

 

Hell, I take units I don't like from time to time to improve my tournament game. I can't stand the GW models for Sanctioned Psykers, but know I need them to counter Nob Bikes and certain other units. Luckily I like everything that's competitive in my SW...

 

My problem? I came second with my list in that particular tournament. Don't jump to conclusions just because I don't see why anyone would run an army they despise to improve their odds. He was a good player and he would not been in the bottom of the food chain with an army he enjoyed seeing/playing.

[Ryzouken]

You expressed disdain for people playing units they do not like in the interest of improving their odds of success in a tournament in the same virtual breath where you mentioned entering a tournament. Logically, if you dislike behavior X and behavior X is linked directly to tournaments, you can either avoid the behavior by avoiding tournaments or you can enter tournaments and expect to see behavior X. Your ability to succeed in tournament environments is nearly irrelevant, my point was, if you don't like behavior X, take steps to avoid situations where behavior X is commonplace.

 

"I hate snakes. The other day, I went into a reptile house, and this snake creeped me right out."

"Then don't go to reptile houses!"

"But I won the raffle they had in there that day!"

[Wysten]

To be honest, I don't believe it was him expressing a disbane for it himself, but that some players make lists they don't like because thats "the way of playing it".

 

That being said, I believe it isn't a problem. Whether it was netdecked or not isn't the issue, but rather the experienced fellow took a list he wasn't happy with. That is a tragedy in itself, but a bad buy, rather then a netdecked issue. That he simply didn't have the content mentality to properly weild nor felt the need to difficeniate.

[Grey Mage]

No one would complain about net lists if they weren't generally strong. That's the main thing. If they were all terrible like all foot blood claws, no one would complain. People get upset when they lose to what they may perceive as an inferior opponent with a list he didn't come up with.

 

That's it.

 

But the blame lies with the army book for having useless units. Or entire codexes.

My complaint has nothing to do with the strength of the lists. Netlists vary in power all over the field- and as noted, users do too- so that really isnt an issue.

 

The issue is that it gets boring. Ive been playing this game for over half of my life now, and I do not want to see the same worn out list day in and day out when I walk up to a blood angel player. I want something new, I want excitement, and I want a CHALLENGE. New codices shouldnt be the only time I get that!

 

Whats the point in playing a tactical wargame if the tactics are all known ahead of time? *yawn*.

 

Edit: I got to tournaments, and I go there to win. If others want to bring net-lists to a tourney, *shrugs* more power to them. I can hit any of them just as hard as I need to with my balanced, self made, and constantly rethought lists.

We had a rash of Razorspam around here- and you know what, it gotten beaten out of the area for the most part. Leafblower? Never could get a foothold. Almost every net-list out there relies on spamming cheap vehicles or 2+ saves, and the tools for smacking them down reliably can be found in most codices (with apologies to the Tyranids players).

[Captain Idaho]

Net lists aren't strong per se, they are efficient at a specific role and easy to use/forgiving.

 

The problem is, are newbies really learning in the best way possible by taking Netlists? Is there a more efficient way of learning?

 

I learnt 40K without Net lists and it has done me well. I taught my friends how to play 40k (3 of them) without using Net lists and we were having competetive games within a month.

[hmk17]

Net lists aren't strong per se, they are efficient at a specific role and easy to use/forgiving.

 

The problem is, are newbies really learning in the best way possible by taking Netlists? Is there a more efficient way of learning?

 

I learnt 40K without Net lists and it has done me well. I taught my friends how to play 40k (3 of them) without using Net lists and we were having competetive games within a month.

 

Some of them are't that forgiving or even flexible. Many net lists assume you will face X, but if your opponents bring Y instead, you are straight out of luck.

 

In tournament hierarchy you typically have the Meta Net lists, the Counters to said net lists, and the random lists people have brought. Net > Counter > Random > Net

 

 

But you have a very valid point, "Is this the best way to learn the game for new players?"

 

I really don't think it is. It discourages creativity and abstract thinking which is how lists are born in the first place.