Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

3 big questions:

1. How much of a tournament is decided on match-ups? Even though people have all comers builds, there is always one army that can counter your army. How much does this come into to play for winning tournaments?


2. How much of a match is decided on who goes first? What type of army benefits the most from going first? Which army cant afford to go second?


3. How much does a mission or deployment dictate a match's results?

Final Question: Well I guess my main question here is how much of this game is based on luck?

1. Varies on the size of the tournament, and the number of tournaments you play.

2. This is hard to say. DOA list don't mind going second. Your opponent loses 2 turns of shooting he was counting on. Alpha Strike List really need to go first.

1) Depends on the size of the tournament and the player field. In smaller tournaments (1000pts) matchup disparities are more pronounced. At larger point values it is much more common to see armies that can 'handle' the vast majority of builds so army matchups aren't as big a deal. Player matchups can throw a tournament though. If the top players get randomly paired together in the first game, odds are good they pull a draw then they'll be playing to catch up the rest of the tournament.

2) Usually doesn't matter. Dark Eldar often really need first turn. Guard tend to want first turn as well, Tau often do as well. Decent players will have ways to win it regardless of who goes first though, you can't plan on being successful based solely on a single roll before the game really starts.

Creeping Dementia wrote:If the top players get randomly paired together in the first game, odds are good they pull a draw then they'll be playing to catch up the rest of the tournament.

This is really one of the biggest issues. You can have top players getting set against each other, and someone else who gets seal-clubber matchups for the first two rounds, and someone else who is a top player and manages to go 3 rounds with only mediocre matchups. There is a lot of randomness to tournaments, but that adds an element of excitement too. You can be the best and not come out on top, but that also means that you can come out on top even if you're not the best.

Bad rolls can end an tournament for you also. Doesn't matter how good you are, your luck is bad enough you will not pull a win.

Last tournament I played in I think my 3rd round opponent made something like 5 our of 30+ power armor saves. He played very well but his save rolls making it look like he had 6+ armor instead of 3+ basically ended the game for him. Same can happen the other way too, a mediocre player can go far in a tournament with some excellent rolls.

I am not a fan of people who bring very unbalanced list to a tournament. For example, this list is very awesome against your army but will lose to every other person there. You were just unlucky enough to go up against the guy who had a list tailored to your army. haha

Tomb King wrote:I am not a fan of people who bring very unbalanced list to a tournament. For example, this list is very awesome against your army but will lose to every other person there. You were just unlucky enough to go up against the guy who had a list tailored to your army. haha

That really doesn't happen very often. If it does its probably because you have a big weakness in your army you didn't address, its not the other guys fault.

well I guess my main question here is how much of this game is based on luck?

IMO I think a very large part is based on luck. Ive lost games that a blind child with a learning disorder shouldnt have lost but the huge amount of bad die rolls killed me. I think seize is the worst rule GW has ever made. When i sit down to make a list for a Tournament it isnt based around going first but if i set up to go first then with a 16.66% chance of my opponent rolling a 6 then he gets to set up based off of my deployment AND gets to go first its pretty much a kick in the sack. People always say to set up with the chance of them seizing but if i do that i lose the full advantage of going first. The deployment types and mission scenarios can hugely change an armies chances of winning. Couple that with a bag army match up and your chances basically become zero. Ive never sat down and really thought about how much luck goes into a tourny before. But if it was all based off of luck, you wouldnt keep seeing the same familiar faces over and over at the top tables. Ive never been to a big tournament before (other than round two of Ard Boyz and Ive done well at those) but I pretty much dominate my locals. Im hoping to get to go to the Nova open this August so Ill keep this thread in mind as I go through my rounds.

1. I don't believe that there's always one army that can counter yours unless you build your army with that kind of weakness in it. There are armies that may give you a harder time or an easier time, but if it's possible for your army to auto-lose to any possible opponent, then that's an army that's not ideal to take to a tournament.

2. It actually seems to me that it's *easier* to win a tournament matchup going second, because you generally know when you're going into the last turn (because of the time limit), and you can look around and see what you need to do to score the win and do it. I've gone second in seven of my last nine tournament games, and of those games I had 8 wins and a draw.

I think maybe the advantage of first turn is only a factor when one of the armies in the round depends heavily on going first, like alpha-strike or drop pod armies. The "leaf blower" list that depends on crippling the opponent with the first round of shooting, a BA drop army, or an army that has spent hundreds of points on turn1 charge schenanigans (LS Storms, Shrike & Scouts) loses much of that advantage if an opponent either goes first or has an army that can go all in reserve without losing fighting ability. If your army is designed to give you options whether you go first or second (which is what I try for in my armies) then you can always negate your opponent's advantage regardless of whether you're going first or second.

3. The mission is the only factor determining the outcome--I'm not sure I understand the question. The player who can fulfill the mission objectives is the winner, regardless of whatever else happens. I had a couple of wonky games at my last tournament (playing vanilla marines) where I won the games without doing very much damage to my opponent. In one against a space wolves, about half my army was destroyed and I hadn't killed even a single unit or vehicle, but at the end of the game I was sitting on one objective and contesting all the others, so I won. In the following round against orks I again lost whole chunks of my army and actually scored exactly one kill point by killing the last biker of a unit in the last shot of the game, but I had just enough units in each of three table quarters to claim them, so I won. The mission is the only thing that matters.

I know a lot of people are fond of saying that the winner is determined at deployment, but I disagree. That's only true of static armies that are going to be depending on shooting to achieve their mission goals. Armies coming in from reserve or highly mobile armies can adjust deployment or redeploy in response to what happens on the table, and in fact gain an advantage from the fact that they aren't heavily dependent on deployment.

To me, luck is only a large factor in a game if (1) your army depends on shooting or assault to win games or (2) your only maneuvering units are regular infantry and monstrous creatures. If your army wins games with vehicle movement--which is one of the things in the game which is almost completely free from the effects of luck--then you can have bad dice and still win.

I'd say that the most important skill in 40k is risk management. Being able to play the odds and being able to minimize losses if gak hits the fan is the hallmark of a great 40k player, something that I'll with pride claim that I am not. I'm learning though and the Templar FAQ didn't exactly hurt.

Over the course of a tournament, better players will come out ahead of inferior players. This is easy enough to show, as if you look at names that win, or place highly, in major events, they're often similar.

However, merely being a top player is no guarantee of success. The factors outside of your control come in to play. I don't generally consider the dice (with one or two exceptions) to be "out of your control". As AlmightyWalrus says, 40k is a game of risk management, and learning to play the odds is a skill.

The only dice I consider to be 'outside your control' are those that begin the game - the roll to pick deployment sides and go first. Other dice-rolling should simply be accounted for.

In 40k, these elements I think of as uncontrollable generally fall into one of three categories, and usually a combination of them.

1) Opponent's army. This can be something like designing your army to face the prevalent mech meta-game, only to be paired up against someone running 180 orks on foot. Or it can be something like having to face an alpha-strike army and losing the roll to go first. If they have a good turn, you may never get to make any relevant moves.

You might have the perfect army to beat the guy who wins the tournament, but you had to play the only 9-broadside army in the first round and got knocked into the losers bracket - you never got that chance.

2) Terrain available and deployment type. You roll off and get stuck in the corner with no cover... or your shooty force is put on a table with a large central LOS element that your opponent uses to close with you. Some tournament players expect barren plains and extol the virtues of bringing their own cover with them. Nice if you get saves, but not always possible to avoid LoS at all.

3) Mission type. Are you required to do something you're not really set up to do? Are you playing a kill-point mission against an army with 4 kill points?


Most good players can beat an inferior player if one of the above goes against them. As more uncontrollable factors are added in, it gets progressively harder to win. It's not so bad facing an alpha strike army in an objective mission if you've got several nice pieces of terrain to hide behind. If you're stuck on an open plain against the same, it's a different matter.

I think thats why ard boyz and a lot of the GT's have missions posted before the tournament because I would hate to show up and find that the mission screws my army and benefits another. For example: ard boyz fantasy mission 1 this year or last year mission 3 for 40k ard boyz.

1. Match-ups can make or break you if you design your list to a specific thing. You tailor your list against marines and you face orks, you make a mech list and come up against huge amounts of anti-tank. While the make or break is more subtle in all-comers lists it's still there. Some armies lack or pay a premium for units another army has in abundance. You have to play the match-ups in your favour, even if you draw it badly. A gun-line army can suffer terribly to drop pop lists but at the same time, if the gun-line has sufficiant weapons in the right places the pops can drop its cargo to their deaths.

2. The question of who goes first and how to set up your deployment is always a tricky one. Do you deploy assuming you go first for maximum damage? Or do you hold back in case the enemy steals the initiative? Its a tactical choice and you have to weigh the benifits against the risks. The risks won't go away, you just have to learn what it's worth to you.

3. The mission is everything. Tailor everything to win the mission. I've seen many players lose sight of what should have been their priority in little grudges and find out too late that they'd lost before the game was over. A recent example in a friendly game was when my DA opponant decided to charge my crippled power blob with his veterans instead of heading to an objective. They only held on for a turn but it was sufficiant that he couldn't reach the objective in time. In objective missions you can't have the mentality that if you kill something its not going to claim an objective. While its true, it takes valueable time away from movement. This is even more important with slower armies.

Flavius Infernus wrote:2. It actually seems to me that it's *easier* to win a tournament matchup going second, because you generally know when you're going into the last turn (because of the time limit), and you can look around and see what you need to do to score the win and do it. I've gone second in seven of my last nine tournament games, and of those games I had 8 wins and a draw.

I think maybe the advantage of first turn is only a factor when one of the armies in the round depends heavily on going first, like alpha-strike or drop pod armies. The "leaf blower" list that depends on crippling the opponent with the first round of shooting, a BA drop army, or an army that has spent hundreds of points on turn1 charge schenanigans (LS Storms, Shrike & Scouts) loses much of that advantage if an opponent either goes first or has an army that can go all in reserve without losing fighting ability. If your army is designed to give you options whether you go first or second (which is what I try for in my armies) then you can always negate your opponent's advantage regardless of whether you're going first or second.

Agreed, I always prefer going second, I usually deploy my transports safely behind cover and then force my opponent to basically waste their first turn, unable to shoot anything. The last-turn rush is also very handy, I've won games just running to objectives, not having to worry about getting shot off it next turn.

So, a few things I'd like to add to the "tournament environment" part of this.

1.) Usually tournaments use WAY too little terrain. Just go to the battle report section and look for battle reports about tournaments and you'll quickly see what I mean. The average amount of terrain is usually COMICALLY shy of 25%. This gives serious advantages to armies that rely on alpha strike capability, and long range shooting (or drop pods).

2.) Tournaments are timed. The more you learn to play fast, the more options you have, but it still doesn't change the fact that there are tournaments where you're playing 2500 point games in 3 hours. Needless to say, this highly favors armies that are able to deliver damage as quickly as possible up front, and do the least amount of non-die rolling as possible (so, are immobile, for example).

Put these two together, and you can see why leafblowers were so popular.

As for the luck element, 40k is a game of risk management, but it is in no way a game of risk elimination. Smarter players do better over lots and lots of rolls, but that's part of the problem with tournaments - fewer games ensure a smaller sample set.

If you have bad luck on your very first game, it can easily torpedo your chances of placing well, especially at larger tournaments, and having bad luck for only a single game, or even a few key die rolls in that game is very possible. Not to say that people who do well in tournaments aren't good, but just being good doesn't mean you're going to do well in any given tournament.

Deceiver wrote:1. Match-ups can make or break you if you design your list to a specific thing. You tailor your list against marines and you face orks, you make a mech list and come up against huge amounts of anti-tank. While the make or break is more subtle in all-comers lists it's still there. Some armies lack or pay a premium for units another army has in abundance. You have to play the match-ups in your favour, even if you draw it badly.

I think this is a big myth of the all-comer list. An all-comer (or "balanced") list is strongest against other all-comer lists. The more extreme the opponent's build, the more stretched the all-comer's resources become. To simplify this, you have a finite amount of resources and must build a list that can cope with hordes of guys, as well as enemy tanks. If you run into an opponent with no enemy tanks, any points you spent on the anti-tank guns become dead weight (with the exception, possibly, of imperial missile launchers). If you run into an army of all T5 2+/3+ models, any points you put into anti light-infantry becomes dead weight. Few people run the very extreme builds, but when the balanced list faces one, it definitely does so at a disadvantage. Xenos armies tend to suffer more than Imperials because they use specialist units more than specialist gear. A unit of fire dragons may be a necessity if you are running eldar, but they're a huge liability when you have to play green tide orks.

2. The question of who goes first and how to set up your deployment is always a tricky one. Do you deploy assuming you go first for maximum damage? Or do you hold back in case the enemy steals the initiative? Its a tactical choice and you have to weigh the benifits against the risks. The risks won't go away, you just have to learn what it's worth to you.

I think the risk of stolen initiative is very very small. If you set up to open-fire with an alpha-strike army, your opponent is looking at a 5/6 chance of being shot off the table unless they deploy defensively (or in reserve). Those aren't odds anyone wants to play, and so even if your opponent does steal, odds are slim that they're in position to capitalize on it. I know when I play, I don't even bother to try and steal the initiative for those reasons. I know I can't exploit it, so I might as well stick to my plan for surviving and taking the last turn.

At Adepticon, I remember playing a game against an opposing team who did manage to steal the initiative. They really didn't know what to do with it once they had it, and essentially squandered the opportunity to go second (not to be underestimated where objectives are concerned) in exchange for some minimal maneuver and poor shot opportunities.

3. The mission is everything. Tailor everything to win the mission. I've seen many players lose sight of what should have been their priority in little grudges and find out too late that they'd lost before the game was over. A recent example in a friendly game was when my DA opponant decided to charge my crippled power blob with his veterans instead of heading to an objective. They only held on for a turn but it was sufficiant that he couldn't reach the objective in time. In objective missions you can't have the mentality that if you kill something its not going to claim an objective. While its true, it takes valueable time away from movement. This is even more important with slower armies.

Yes, but those are decisions made in the game - controllable factors. You decide to chase the opponent's models rather than the objectives, so that's a player error, not an uncontrollable aspect of the event.

Some good examples of how missions can be uncontrollable factors can be found in non-standard missions (one reason a lot of tournaments are moving away from these things).

Kill the enemy HQ: You play guard. You have a command squad, maybe sitting in a chimera. I'm playing Grey Knights with Kaldor Draigo, 10 paladins w/ a doc and a librarian attached (that's 26 distributable wounds at 2+/5++ (some 3++) with Feel No Pain to boot that you need to chew through). Does this mission favour you or me?

Move units off your opponent's table edge, pitched battle deployment: I've got mech dark eldar and can be off your table edge on turn 2. You've got straken guard blobs.


Fortunately, many tournaments are sticking to book missions these days, so if you build your army to plan for those three missions, you're usually okay. But it seems that you hear stories about missions that screwed one army or another after enough events that it's something to consider.

Redbeard wrote:

Deceiver wrote:1. Match-ups can make or break you if you design your list to a specific thing. You tailor your list against marines and you face orks, you make a mech list and come up against huge amounts of anti-tank. While the make or break is more subtle in all-comers lists it's still there. Some armies lack or pay a premium for units another army has in abundance. You have to play the match-ups in your favour, even if you draw it badly.

I think this is a big myth of the all-comer list. An all-comer (or "balanced") list is strongest against other all-comer lists. The more extreme the opponent's build, the more stretched the all-comer's resources become. To simplify this, you have a finite amount of resources and must build a list that can cope with hordes of guys, as well as enemy tanks. If you run into an opponent with no enemy tanks, any points you spent on the anti-tank guns become dead weight (with the exception, possibly, of imperial missile launchers). If you run into an army of all T5 2+/3+ models, any points you put into anti light-infantry becomes dead weight. Few people run the very extreme builds, but when the balanced list faces one, it definitely does so at a disadvantage. Xenos armies tend to suffer more than Imperials because they use specialist units more than specialist gear. A unit of fire dragons may be a necessity if you are running eldar, but they're a huge liability when you have to play green tide orks.

2. The question of who goes first and how to set up your deployment is always a tricky one. Do you deploy assuming you go first for maximum damage? Or do you hold back in case the enemy steals the initiative? Its a tactical choice and you have to weigh the benifits against the risks. The risks won't go away, you just have to learn what it's worth to you.

I think the risk of stolen initiative is very very small. If you set up to open-fire with an alpha-strike army, your opponent is looking at a 5/6 chance of being shot off the table unless they deploy defensively (or in reserve). Those aren't odds anyone wants to play, and so even if your opponent does steal, odds are slim that they're in position to capitalize on it. I know when I play, I don't even bother to try and steal the initiative for those reasons. I know I can't exploit it, so I might as well stick to my plan for surviving and taking the last turn.

At Adepticon, I remember playing a game against an opposing team who did manage to steal the initiative. They really didn't know what to do with it once they had it, and essentially squandered the opportunity to go second (not to be underestimated where objectives are concerned) in exchange for some minimal maneuver and poor shot opportunities.

3. The mission is everything. Tailor everything to win the mission. I've seen many players lose sight of what should have been their priority in little grudges and find out too late that they'd lost before the game was over. A recent example in a friendly game was when my DA opponant decided to charge my crippled power blob with his veterans instead of heading to an objective. They only held on for a turn but it was sufficiant that he couldn't reach the objective in time. In objective missions you can't have the mentality that if you kill something its not going to claim an objective. While its true, it takes valueable time away from movement. This is even more important with slower armies.

Yes, but those are decisions made in the game - controllable factors. You decide to chase the opponent's models rather than the objectives, so that's a player error, not an uncontrollable aspect of the event.

Some good examples of how missions can be uncontrollable factors can be found in non-standard missions (one reason a lot of tournaments are moving away from these things).

Kill the enemy HQ: You play guard. You have a command squad, maybe sitting in a chimera. I'm playing Grey Knights with Kaldor Draigo, 10 paladins w/ a doc and a librarian attached (that's 26 distributable wounds at 2+/5++ (some 3++) with Feel No Pain to boot that you need to chew through). Does this mission favour you or me?

Move units off your opponent's table edge, pitched battle deployment: I've got mech dark eldar and can be off your table edge on turn 2. You've got straken guard blobs.


Fortunately, many tournaments are sticking to book missions these days, so if you build your army to plan for those three missions, you're usually okay. But it seems that you hear stories about missions that screwed one army or another after enough events that it's something to consider.

Sometimes tie breakers for different tournaments can screw your army. For example: 5pts per vehicle destroyed. I draw Nids or Daemons. Kill points for the whole tournament, I am playing mech ig. +1 pt for every 5 infantry models killed, I draw grey knights haha.

Ailaros wrote:
1.) Usually tournaments use WAY too little terrain. Just go to the battle report section and look for battle reports about tournaments and you'll quickly see what I mean. The average amount of terrain is usually COMICALLY shy of 25%. This gives serious advantages to armies that rely on alpha strike capability, and long range shooting (or drop pods).

This is so true. I played in one tournament where if you had all terrain on all tables placed on one board, it would still be considered a light board. People (TO's) forget that the amount of terrain on the table effects armies differently.

Isn't it supposed to be a rule that 25% of the board be covered in terrain? I agree that most tournaments fail to follow this. Also, the time limit of games has always given a disadvantage to horde armies.

I don't think 25% is a rule, it's more of a guideline. And even if it were a rule, reality can get in the way. Some game stores have 25% terrain for 4 tables. A 8-table tournament stretches what they have. Or they rely on the gentle cresting hills that are desirable in fantasy but have negligible impact on 40k play. Few GTs have the store of terrain to fill 25% of 50 or more tables. Those that do have huge projects to keep it up to date every year.

Redbeard wrote:I don't think 25% is a rule, it's more of a guideline. And even if it were a rule, reality can get in the way. Some game stores have 25% terrain for 4 tables. A 8-table tournament stretches what they have. Or they rely on the gentle cresting hills that are desirable in fantasy but have negligible impact on 40k play. Few GTs have the store of terrain to fill 25% of 50 or more tables. Those that do have huge projects to keep it up to date every year.

Page 88 25% of the playing board should have terrain on it balance the playing field.

1. How much of a tournament is decided on match-ups? Even though people have all comers builds, there is always one army that can counter your army. How much does this come into to play for winning tournaments?

It depends on how good your army is. You can get lucky and play really really bad armies that yours counter the first couple of rounds. When you get to the last couple of games in the tournament your playing top tier players assuming youve won, which is when matchups are gurenteed hard. In all honesty match ups have a large part to do with it, if you play the winning army game one , that sucks. It also depends on what kind of army you bring, and how many armies coutner yours. If you bring chaos demons when theres like 20 GK players, matchups might be pretty tough.

2. How much of a match is decided on who goes first? What type of army benefits the most from going first? Which army cant afford to go second?

I would say this is important. An Alpha strike army like Eldar/Dark Eldar need to go first, and if they dont they loose. Any shooting army needs to go first. Orcs/Tyranids/Necrons it doesnt really matter but they would prefer to go first to close the distance. It also depends on how much terrain there is on the board, if theres lots of terrain and you can get cover on everything its not bad, if the board is open and your army cant get cover saves your going to get blown up. It also depends against what kind of army your playing against, if your playing against 15longfang spacewolves its imperative that you go first, if your playing against orcs its not a big deal. As an eldar player I always run an autarch and go second even if I win the roll.

3. How much does a mission or deployment dictate a match's results?

It matchs it depending on how competant you are. If you place everything to be in a position to do something, your fine. If you deploy really poorly acroos a table edge and some units cant do anything, you might be stuck.

Tomb King wrote:Page 88 25% of the playing board should have terrain on it balance the playing field.

Very good. But I don't think that section is written as a hard-and-fast rule, it's more of a guideline. I reckon that it would say "must" if it was something that absolutely necessary.

I agree, but the TO's could do a bit better at trying to get to that. It is a big factor and the community around them is sure to help if asked.

As for the OP's questions. Yes luck can gak you, but it is one factor out of many. Risk management and making the most out of the opposition's mistakes rather than focusing on the unconrolable factors will ALWAYS gat you further IMHO. But the reality of the fact that you maybe badly matched for your build or the table setup (theres theat tarrain factor) augments your tactics, which can make you prodictale and thus vunerable.

The bit about a off balanced force facing a balanced force can be ture if the max list was done/played to its build. Make the game play towards the weakness (and that will not be the whole game, but a section of the board) and the off balance list player will have problems, a whole ton if that list is not their idea and just what someone/internets say they should play. It is truly halairous to see the look on thier face when you force them and they have no idea how to deal with it...