Check out this pretty informative post by Caleb at White Metal Games. When I read this originally it really got the gears going in my head about the whole competitive “scene”.
From White Metal Games:
It’s funny how getting your ass kicked makes you think about the game differently.
A few weeks ago I played a Dark Eldar player and lost. And by lost I mean got my s$%t pushed in. You can find a battle summary here. Let me start off my saying that Spence is a great friend of mine. But he is a power gamer. He’s a meta gamer (more on that soon) and he came to win.
After most battles I like to sit back and think about what I did wrong. But honestly this time, I more got to thinking about the state of the meta game in general.
Firstly, here’s what happened: Dark Eldar have this amazing ability called Night Vision. Basically, they ignore night fighting. Normally, I wouldn’t think much of this, I certainly didn’t in 5th, where night fighting only happened in one mission and even then routinely only for one turn. Yes, Necrons have the cryptek solar pulse thing, but that’s just one army. Generally, night fighting wasn’t a big deal. You learned to play around it.
In 6th, however, every mission has nightfighting. I personally feel like this is overkill. As though every mission is planned around dawn or dusk. Dramatic, yes. Balanced, no. I might feel differently if other armies had a way to combat this (not everyone has a searchlight, after all), but for me, a Nid player, we don’t really have a good option for dealing with Nightfighting. What’s worse is there is a Warlord power that allows Nightfighting for another turn (yes, it’s a 1 in 6 chance of rolling it), but the potential there is devastating if you are a Dark Eldar player.
So, basically turn one I set up in cover. Spence goes first. Proceeds to ignore night fighting and shoots the crap out of me. I advance a little on my turn, but due to mid range weapons and night fighting have no viable targets. Spence safely hunkers down at the edge of 24″.
Turn 2, Spence shoots the begeezus out of me again. At this point, honestly, the game is over. He’s eliminated all my big units (Tervigons, hive guard, etc) leaving me with units of gaunts without much synapse, and a few units in reserve that will arrive piecemeal and allow him to deal with them one by one. The game was over. I forfeit less than an hour into the game. Pretty sad.
The problem was I came by for a friendly game of checkers and Spence was playing chess. I came to play and Spence came to win.
After the game we were both feeling very dissatisfied. So much so in fact that we picked up a game of Space Hulk and got in a quick mission. And while I very much enjoyed our game of space hulk, Spence (who was playing the marines) kept taking back moves to make new moves, better moves. Now he did this within the timer limit and we’re on good terms so I was fine with it. But I got to thinking about this and I have to wonder . . . is winning that all around important to some players? So much so in fact that they rethink every move they make on the table to ensure victory?
Then you have to ask yourself, if I beat my opponent every game, how long will I have an opponent in them? No to say that as a blackmail attempt, like ‘let me win or we’re not friends anymore’ but more along the lines of ‘if every time we get together it’s just you winning and me being a gracious loser, are we both getting what we want out of our time together?’
Spence knows I’m not a tournament player, and he on the other hand is a very VERY competitive player. Spence harped to me that in order to win, I should follow the meta. Follow the meta? Is that like follow the yellow brick road? Is the Emerald City around here somewhere?
To be honest, I was at a bit of a loss. What exactly did he mean, the meta? I got the general idea that meta meant cherry picking your army to win. But what does metagame really mean?
According to good ole’ 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, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one’s in-game decisions.
In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player’s character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of. (Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character’s in-game experiences and back-story.)
Urban Dictionary, on the other hand, had this to say:
| metagame | ||
|
The highest level of strategy in many complex games, metagame refers to any aspect of strategy that involves thinking about what your opponent is thinking you are thinking.
Metagame comes into play in any game where no single strategy is dominant and opposing sides are aware of multiple strategies that can succeed dependent upon opponents’ actions. In order to perform at the highest level, it then becomes necessary to think about what your opponent thinks you will do (which may depend on what he thinks you think he thinks he will do, etc.) and to make decisions based on clues regarding what level they are thinking on. This term is most commonly used to refer to poker and other complex card games, but is increasingly being used in relation to video games with complicated player vs player elements and even traditional sports. Normally I would raise the flop with this hand as a semi-bluff, but I’ve been so aggressive lately that taking metagame into consideration I think he will go all-in with any pair, so instead I’m going to fold.
This guy thinks that I’m going to zergling rush which means he will waste resources defending early. Instead I am going to focus on resource development for mid game, and metagame will win me this match. |
||
So, in a nutshell, metagame is just another term for strategy. What Spence was referring to was the metagame as it applies to the gaming community in general, ie, you get thousands of people talking about the game in forums and chatrooms, etc, and eventually certain commonalities start to emerge, ie, what army builds are more effective than others and why.
There were several articles about a related topic on BOLS recently.
In this first link, the author makes a case against using Forgeworld Models in tournaments, and basically goes on to say that if they continue to be allowed, he will, and I quote “I can and will buy the most broken FW combos I can to play in tournaments” This sort of felt backhanded to me. It was an escalation article, about how if I bring FW to game, he will too! This is the sort of mentality I’m talking about, this ‘win at all costs’ mindset. It goes against the spirit of the game. Reecius had a dynamic reply, and it was the first comment listed, so be sure to read it! I like the way he thinks,
In this second link, watch the 2 videos. I really agreed with the author here, that while the first video was great, the second video was a missed opportunity. These two guys are so focused on winning that they forgot the foremost tenant of gaming: have fun. Didn’t look like this girl who couldn’t get in a word edgewise was having fun.
A few years ago I got in my first game of WFB. Let me be clear, this was my first game. My opponent at the time agreed to take it easy on me so I could learn the game. I thought ‘Great, finally, a teacher!’ About half way through the game, my units had a few lucky breaks and it looked like I might manage to win the game. Let me be clear, I was not trying to win, I was simply trying to learn.
About this time, my opponent stops teaching me and starts competing with me. When it looked like he might lose, he made it a point to win, even though I as a brand new player and we had begun the game by saying that this is a teaching game. As soon as victory wasn’t a foregone conclusion, all bets were off.
Maybe the sad lesson to be learned here is that in 40k there are no friends . . . only winners and losers.
What the meta and for that matter winning in general doesn’t take into account is enjoyment of the hobby, personal fulfillment, long term enjoyment, or I would argue level of skill.
Oftentimes I compare 40k to chess. Each player has the same number of points (pieces) and they play towards the same goal (capturing objectives, destroying enemy units, etc). However, its about this point the analogy falls flat. In chess each player has EXACTLY the same number of pieces and each piece works exactly the same. Of course, not so in 40k.
The beauty of 40k vs a game like Warmachine or Hordes is how individual the game is. No two armies are alike, period. No two armies play the same way. Endless variation. Otherwise why would it be, lets be honest, the biggest tabletop miniatures strategy game in the world.
Spence has often asked me why I don’t play in tournaments. If you’re not a competitive player its a little like asking a penguin why he doesn’t like the beach. It’s just not my native environment.
Let’s say I’m a tournament player. I’m running the list of the week, a 2000 point build of 9 flyers or what not with the minimum # of troops. I’ve spent my last three paychecks building the list and spent about 10 minutes painting the army up in shades of black/grey and little dab of red for the 3 color down minimum. BOOM! Bring on the glory, right?
But the problem is tournaments are full of these guys. But let’s say I’m the lucky duckling that wins. I’ve won the day. Now what? Do I feel better about myself in general? Am I a better person? Does my life overall improve? Is it a confidence building experience, or it is just the competitive spirit in me that cannot be quenched except by wiping my enemy from the face of the earth?
Honestly, it’s unfair of me to judge tournament players just for playing in tournaments. After all, our world is full of competitive events. Boxing, race car driving, baseball, hockey, football, you name it! Our world loves to compete, to measure ourselves against each other.
But when does this winning at any cost mindset start to lose its integrity? When does the meta falter?
As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that long term enjoyment is favorable over short term success. I’m a tortoise, not a hare. I build my lists based on one overall concept: I play what I want. If the model looks cool, I field it. I have a love hate relationship with pyrovore! Love the model, but have a hard time making them work in a game. A 2 wound infantry model with what amounts to heavy flamer? Hard to justify at 45 points. But the model is so cool to me, I just love fielding them! Are they a meta unit? Absolutely not. I’ve never seen this unit fielded other than when I do. But I love them so much I field them anyway. Why? Because they look cool!
And for me THAT’S the fulfilling part of the hobby. Self enjoyment, not self vindication. Glory through having fun, not glory through victory. Otherwise why would I still be playing Nids? For a swarm army, they have a rough go of it. We’re the only army in the game without adequate transports (sporepods not withstanding). Why I don’t feel like we need malefactors, we do need SOME WAY to get across the field without losing so many bodies that our units still have an impact. We need to hit with force of gale force winds, not a gentle breeze. And I haven’t found the answer to that yet.
As far as the meta goes, how long are these 9 flyers lists going to be fun to play? A few months? A year? At what point are you going to get so tired of your opponent smirking at you from across the table that you recognize “If my opponent isn’t having a good time too, maybe there’s something to be said against this style of play” And what about skill. If I win with a 9 flyer list, is it really a win, or just finding loopholes in the game to exploit until the game catches up?
I think ultimately it comes down to a question of spirit of the game vs. rules as written. Yes, a 9 flyer list is a legitimate army. But is it the sort of game your opponent will enjoy playing? Will you tell stories about the game for weeks to come, or will you hide your victory in shame? I feel like an all flyer list at this point is a bit like playing basketball with a kid in a wheelchair. They are new to the game and can’t reach the basket. Of course you keep dunking on them, jackass!
Let me also say this: meta changes, but glue is forever.
Grey Knights have this weapon called a Halberd. It’s pretty common. Force Weapon, +2 Init. It’s in my opinion awesome! Many players agreed with me and fielded these in droves the codex first came out. But serious, how many I6 instant death attacks do you need? Other players caught up to this idea and realized after a while that their armies were inbalanced, and not in a good way. Yes, they are effective, but are they as effective, points wise, as they could be? Probably not. But now those arms are glued in place and the paint has dried. Too late now!
Maybe the answer here is to have a balanced list from the get go to get the most out of your army at every stage of your play experience, rather than running around like a kid in a toy store looking for the next new thing (ie, new army).
I’ve taken a long path to make a simple point: you get out of the hobby what you put into it. If you only play to win, then you can achieve that. But my question would be, what do you play for?
My name is Caleb Dillon and I am a conversion artist for hire. You can find hundreds of items on sale in our web store, including our new table ready army deals!
Until next time, put your minis where your mouth is!
Caleb, WMG
About the Author: Rob Baer
Rob Baer
Job Title: Founder, Publisher, & Managing Editor
Founded Spikey Bits In 2009
Socials: Rob Baer on Facebook and @catdaddymbg on X
Bio: Virginia restless, miniature painter & cat dad. He blames LEGOs for all this, as there was something about those little-colored blocks that started it all. Spikey Bits started with Rob trying to stay motivated to hobby on his backlog of projects and share his knowledge with others during the early blogging era.
Scale model hobbyist in the 80s, miniature wargamer, and trading card player ever since. He’s played every edition of Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy since 5th Edition, but Titans of all sizes will always be his favorite! It’s even rumored that his hobby vault rivals the Solemnance Galleries, containing rulebooks filled with lore from editions long past, ancient packs of black-bordered Magic Cards, and minatures made of both pewter and resin.
