• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Competitive meta?

Xasto
Terradon

Xasto

Well-Known Member
Messages
510
Likes Received
766
Trophy Points
93
Hello guys

I know that the meta is still very young, with the General's Handbook's release just weeks ago, but can any of you tell us about the meta that is shaping right now in the tournaments? What kind of armies/list do people bring? is there clear champions of the meta already?

Or maybe everything is still in playtesting mode and we can't decide on anyting yet?

Looking to start a discussion here about what people are facing in competitive environments these days!
 
Judging by the tournament results I saw there doesn't seem to be THE big winner. The only visible thing is a notable absence of Destruction players it seems. The others are still like they were before: Many Tzeentch and SCE and Khorne with the same lists as before.
It will take a bit more time I think.
 
Aginor said:
Judging by the tournament results I saw there doesn't seem to be THE big winner. The only visible thing is a notable absence of Destruction players it seems. The others are still like they were before: Many Tzeentch and SCE and Khorne with the same lists as before.
It will take a bit more time I think.
Click to expand...

Tzeentch and especially SCE will probably not change at all, ever. They're fairly well rounded having acces to most everything by default so they'l probably flourish in any meta with pretty much the same approach....

Destruction probably needs grots to become relevant before it'l reliably flourish since those seem to provide a lot of its utility...

I'm a tad surprised at khorne being consistent.. would've expected them to face much the same issues as greenskins...
 
Xasto said:
I know that the meta is still very young...
Click to expand...
When I started playing Warhammer fantasy nobody used the word meta :oldman:

...unheard
...not used
...never spoken in connection with WFB.

I therefore have two questions:
What is a meta?
When did this word (prefix?) begin to to be used by Warhammer players?
What do they mean by it?

Ok, that was three... :oldman:
 
Regardless of whether you call it "army balance", "unit type balance", "stuff that is strong and/or very commonly played at the moment" or "meta" it just means that - either locally (in your club/shop/town/area) or globally (big tournaments, "internet lists") something (units, bataillons, strategies) is played more often (often because it is good numerically), normally because it is strong.

Actually it may be a bad sign if such a thing as a global meta exists. It basically says the game is not balanced in itself. In an ideal game every army, unit, or strategy is viable against enough other armies, units, or strategies that it can make sense to play. Making the choice of units/armies/strategies a personal one, and winning or not depends on whether you can adjust to your opponent's army _during_ the game, not before playing.

Local metas always exist. If - for any reason - there are people who just more often than not like, say, Orcs and Goblins in your shop/club/area it is likely that if you play there you are facing a "horde meta" because that's what those armies happen to do exceptionally well. So if you are "playing the meta" you might want to choose armies/units/strategies that are exceptionally good against hordes.

People have always been doing that kind of stuff, they just didn't call it "meta".


EDIT: The word is of greek origin and actually used borderline wrongly here. Meta in that case means "over". So basically meta gaming or meta strategies would be the act of not playing on the board but looking at the game from outside the game itself, analysing how the game system works and optimizing your army or play style based on what your opponents are likely to bring instead of deciding what to do after the models are on the table.

EDIT: I don't know since when it is used in the Warhammer scene, but in PC gaming the term of meta gaming is at least ten years old I think.
 
Meta gaming comes from game-theory ( fancy math you can use to find optimal approaches) and as such its not really used wrong. It basicly just means that you start looking at which high level strategies would (theoreticly) give you an advantage against a "generic" opponent. Like @Aginor said; maybe people prefer horde armies, in that case using an anti horde army will give you an advantage in most games. Youre using meta information about the games to gain an advantage within the actual game.

Also every game has a meta, regardless of it bein balanced or not. It is however true that if the meta game gets particularly important like in a lot of esports the actual game tends to become a mess balance wise and you are forced to play a certain way or be absolutly destroyed by people abusing the meta.
 
Last edited:
Canas said:
Meta gaming comes from game-theory ( fancy math you can use to find optimal approaches) and as such its not really used wrong. It basicly just means that you start looking at which high level strategies work would (theoreticly) give you an advantage against a "generic" opponent. Like @Aginor said; maybe people prefer horde armies, in that case using an anti horde army will give you an advantage in most games. Youre using meta information about the games to gain an advantage within the actual game.
Click to expand...

The wrong use it to say things like "the (local) meta is hordes". That doesn't make any sense. The rest is OK, the definition of meta gaming is used correctly. Just using the word meta on its own (like if it was a noun) is wrong.
 
Aginor said:
The wrong use it to say things like "the (local) meta is hordes". That doesn't make any sense. The rest is OK, the definition of meta gaming is used correctly. Just using the word meta on its own (like if it was a noun) is wrong.
Click to expand...
True, though what do you expect? People to understand maths and use correct terms? Dont be ridiculous ;)
 
I think @darren watson 's Kroak list is a pretty good example. He looked at the very common Tzeentch builds and aimed specifically at their weaknesses IIRC.
 
Speaking to a lot of people about the upcoming GT final and it appears the Khorne murderhost is one that is worrying a lot of people, low drops, fast and huge mortal wound output plus so many models it gives big board control. That's why I've gone for a list which should beat it, with all the better armies being demons we're in a very strong position now! I'm expecting to see one or two more Seraphon players there, Kroak based list is good but has some big weaknesses for me...

Fyreslayers are also going to be ones to watch out for with their new abilities, now very tough and super killy!
 
Only played a few local events and it seems pretty similar as before, just with a distinct lack of kunnin rukks with monsters. At my first major event this weekend (facehammer gt) so I'll get my first proper taste of the ghb2.
Walking around theres definitely a few more Seraphon players about ☺
 
LordRibbit said:
Speaking to a lot of people about the upcoming GT final and it appears the Khorne murderhost is one that is worrying a lot of people, low drops, fast and huge mortal wound output plus so many models it gives big board control. That's why I've gone for a list which should beat it, with all the better armies being demons we're in a very strong position now! I'm expecting to see one or two more Seraphon players there, Kroak based list is good but has some big weaknesses for me...

Fyreslayers are also going to be ones to watch out for with their new abilities, now very tough and super killy!
Click to expand...
What list are you running? Curious to see a competitive non-kroak list
 
Paul Beenis said:
What list are you running? Curious to see a competitive non-kroak list
Click to expand...

Slann Great Rememberer, Incandescent Retrices
Old Blood on Carno, Coronal Shield
Astrolith Bearer, Prism of Amyntok
Skink Priest, Priestly Trappings, Celestial Rites
Sunblood
Star Priest

40 warriors with spears
10 warriors with clubs
10 warriors with clubs

40 skinks with blowpipes


Fangs of Sotek
Sunclaw Starhost

I think it is good enough to compete but really need most of the buffs to go off, either way my games should be fairly short!
 
Yeah I would be interested to see how a fangs list like this goes! Seems to be the "standard" fangs list so far and I haven't tried it out yet
 
Paul Beenis said:
Yeah I would be interested to see how a fangs list like this goes! Seems to be the "standard" fangs list so far and I haven't tried it out yet
Click to expand...
At 2k your kind of limited with what you can take with the two formations, if I can get all my buffs off on the 40 block with spears that should take most things out
 
Yeah I like that's it's pretty well balanced, although it would be nice to really reap the benefits of the oldblood command ability as I think only the sunblood makes the best use of it. When it really shines is with another carnosaur or something. That said it could be definitely worth losing the prism on the Astrolith bearer and giving the sunblood the -2 rend so at least now with his 7? Attacks they will be all -2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top