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.

The title pretty much sums it up. I think about 50%. What do you think?

bah...browser failure apparently

I accidentally clicked enter and it submitted the thread. It should be fixed now.

It depends a lot on the type of game. At a tournament where the players have to get the very best from the army at the point of list building, the list matters a lot. However, in a game where lists are just built with the rule of cool in mind, what happens in game is far more important.

Too much.

Way too much.

Almost every competent list should have a decent chance at beating any other competent list.
A tailored list will beat what it is suited to beat and will lose to most else.
A crap list that lacks direction will lose to most lists.

If all lists are competent, then the lists shouldn't effect the outcome greatly.
If one or more list is tailored, then the list will have a noticeable effect on the outcome.
If one of the lists is a terrible list, then the list will have a great effect on the outcome.

Ryan A gets it in one.

When the list DOES matter, usually the impact is massive. However, the RATE at which lists matter is dependent on your meta and the setting of the game, ie tournament optimized lists vs rule of cool lists. So for me, it is kind of hard to pick a strict number, as the context is so crucial.

Lists can decide 100% of the game, but it is like a 5% chance that they do, if even that.

For example, if I was to bring a mechanized necron force, and my opponent didn't have any S8+. I would have victory almost guaranteed.

In my opinion it is about 50%. I have seen instances where people take the nastiest net-list they can find, but have no idea how to play it, and they get housed. A good example was at a local RTT I saw a tau player with multiple riptides/knights/broadsides get completely ruined by experienced players who on paper didn't have as good of a list. He didn't win a single battle, but his list was super brutal.

There is an "art" to making a competitive list and I agree with the above posters that it varies greatly on your local meta, and gaming group, but the competitive list doesn't win the game, the player does. (In most cases, not all - this is a rock, paper, scissors type game, so match-ups can greatly determine your success)

Way too much.

80ish %.

I'll chime in with the "Way Too Much," but there are a lot of variables.

For a sub-par codex, the odds of having a bad list are much higher. My normal Guard list is a reasonably fluffy all-rounder, but it'll probably stomp Dark Angels or Chaos which don't utilize the few good units in their books, but if they use the boring lists everyone does to be "competitive," they'll stand a chance.

For a high-power codex, lists are again a big deal; if even trying to actively avoid power-gaming you'll beat most armies, building even slightly competitively gives you an edge before the game starts.

And then there's the ubiquitous tailoring. Now, I don't see much complete tailoring, but there's a few people locally who have their pseudo-tourney lists that they love, and will swap things out to give them the edge over whomever their opponent is, which skews the balance from the outset. Things like a guy with a Khorne list drops one squad of zerkers for a second soulgrinder and adds a lvl 2 sorcerer to counter my unbound marine first company list with two librarians, or a tau player swapping his kroot for fire warriors with EMP grenades because the other guy has plenty of transports. Nothing to give them the 100% win, but enough to skew the odds from roughly even to a good improvement for themselves.

The biggest variable is the terrain. Let a Guard or Tau gunline player set up a line of ruins in each deployment zone with low cover in the middle, and unless you have a superior gunline, you've already lost. Put too much LoS blocking terrain, and assault list will likely wipe the same list. Lists often determine the game, too much given the imbalance inherit in the game at this point (Remember when the Chaos dex, and most of the early 6th codexes dropped and you could build almost any list and have fun? I liked those days), but they are again dependent on terrain and mission.

 Paradigm wrote:
It depends a lot on the type of game. At a tournament where the players have to get the very best from the army at the point of list building, the list matters a lot. However, in a game where lists are just built with the rule of cool in mind, what happens in game is far more important.

Problem is, it'd be "cool" to take an army of nothing but IG footspam and lasguns, but unless you take a butt load of carefully-dispersed anti armour and AA you're going to get roflstomped by anyone who thought to bring his Methul Bawks.

 Selym wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
It depends a lot on the type of game. At a tournament where the players have to get the very best from the army at the point of list building, the list matters a lot. However, in a game where lists are just built with the rule of cool in mind, what happens in game is far more important.

Problem is, it'd be "cool" to take an army of nothing but IG footspam and lasguns, but unless you take a butt load of carefully-dispersed anti armour and AA you're going to get roflstomped by anyone who thought to bring his Methul Bawks.

Well, that's rather an example, but I see the point. There is, however, a great deal of difference between the technique of building a list and designing an ultra-competitive tourney-crushing list. Even when building a fluff/cool list, you're still looking to cover the basics of anti-tank, anti-infantry and maybe anti-flier, unless you shave very good reason not to. Even got extreme fluff/casual players, more goes into it then just pulling units of the shelf at random. Odds are you'll come out with a balanced list when not looking to optimise, which should stand a good chance against any other balanced list.

On the other hand, a tourney list tend to exploit imbalance in its favour, and depending on the codex this will have a far greater or lesser effect.