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.

Here is something for you to discuss:

Why are the armies that most people think are not the top tier lists winning the large tournaments, and doing better then all of the armies that people think are the hardest armies?

Stelek and I have been going back and forth over it in our blogs:
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/
http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/

Stelek has been critical of the army I won the Wild West Shootout with, the army that won BolsCon and the winning 'Ard Boyz army, and any other winning army that does not meet with his approval.

So Clay posted this (I hope you don't mind me re-posting this for the sake of discussion)

Clay wrote:
Ya know, I come to this blog for several reasons. There are some good lists here, and I like to argue, and at those times, it's pretty easy to find something I disagree with here and start into something. But.....

There are lots of zombies/sheep/monkeys/whatever you Stelek clones call yourselves that bash every list, and battle report, all while promoting the ideas that are placed in your head. That's all fine and dandy, but aren't you guys spread out over the country?

In the Atlanta area, we have several(5+) guys who believe the Stelek mantra, and they consistently show up with lists from here. Would you like to guess what they have in common? Other than ZERO tournament wins? Oh, nothing I guess. My point is, that there seem to be enough of you that just running your mouths here on this blog seems a waste. Why aren't you out there DOMINATING the tournament scene?

Soft scores? Where we play, we use checklists. There is no COMP, and the painting and sportsmanship are checklisted. Our lowest Sportsmanship in our last event was a 28 of 30. While I am not here to debate if this is the right way to do things, it certainly makes Battle points king where we play.

Why aren't you guys out there kicking in heads and crushing all the naysayers? There are like I said, 5+ living in Atlanta, and they don't win, well, EVER. They win games, but they don't win tournaments.

What I keep reading here, is; "So and so won blah blah blah event, but his list sucked and any one of us could have crushed it with our 5th edition lists" So my question/challenge to you is, why werent you there? Why arent you EVER there?

Get some T-Shirts, yes, really. Get out there, show us what you mean. The tournament scene isn't competitive? Show up and win some events then, should be relatively easy from what you SAY on this blog. Not a lot of bit behind that bark from what I've seen though.

Not a slam at all, but a challenge, yelling something on this blog about how great your lists are, and how good you are doesn't mean anything to me because skill is all relative. Winning in (insert FLGS here) is all well and fine, but surely some of you are out there where these big tournaments are being held and can show up and play right?

Even if soft scores somehow hose you, you should finish high on the battle points chart, maybe some Best General awards?

This is not directly pointed at Stelek, because I know where he lives, and traveling all around the country doesnt work for some. But mainly you other "sheep", show up at some big events, win some stuff. Specifically, come down to Atlanta, if you are near here, or post and let me know where you play that is near Atlanta, and I will try and attend those events as well.

So my question is, why are not the hardest lists dominating the US tournament scene?

Because the best players play what they like and not the hot list of the moment? Strong players squeeze alot of their lists and take over confident players by suprise.

I think Clay has a point, Stelek's cronies are the kind of young kids who think they are alot smarter than they actually are. Also their armies are probably not designed to massacre, which you do with a balanced list now as opposed to the old school beat stick list, and they are trying to play beat stick lists without understanding why Marc Parker won so many major events with them. The only time I know of Stelek attending a major event he brought a tie army that was getting minor wins(11-9 pts) because of the way they scored things that year. If they didn't decide ties by VPs he would have still placed where he did in the pack he just wouldn't have been "undefeated".

I think the best thing to do is completely ignore him. Looking at his site for ideas is one thing but in anyway engaging him in debate validates him in the eyes of his followers. Just let him die already guys.

Well my belief is that the "hardest lists" also require A LOT of money effort and/or converting (Jetlocks and nob bikers take converting and IG takes massive cash)

For various reasons the internet personas who claim to be amazing may not actually make it to very many tournaments OR the results of such tournaments may not be posted everywhere

As with any swiss system matchups are extremely important. Unlike say warhammer fantasy battle most of the "tough" armies have counter lists that can smack them silly.. PBS > Nob bikers and psyker defense + rate of fire can beat jetlocks

The tournaments themselves may also skew the results because believe or not .. not every tournament believes in the USA scale of massacres.

Win loss + a few bonus points makes the EXTREME lists sometimes less effective at bulldozing the competition as LOTs of armies can win but not a lot can score massacres 3 games in a row

A tournament of all amazing players that uses a massacre system would prob end up with the guy who played the scrub winning it all.. regardless of lists (Hence why i think the massacre
system is garbage)

Of course you cant forget each area's meta-game which may be more favorable towards certain armies.. why bring anti-eldar stuff if no one plays eldar for example?

Kirasu wrote:The tournaments themselves may also skew the results because believe or not .. not every tournament believes in the USA scale of massacres.

Win loss + a few bonus points makes the EXTREME lists sometimes less effective at bulldozing the competition as LOTs of armies can win but not a lot can score massacres 3 games in a row

A tournament of all amazing players that uses a massacre system would prob end up with the guy who played the scrub winning it all.. regardless of lists (Hence why i think the massacre
system is garbage)

Before I posted I did a little research into the winning lists, and while in the US the harder lists seem like they do not do as well, but in the UK the hard lists seem like they do prevail, although less this year than in years past, but they have only had the first heat of 3 to draw conclusions from.

It is kind of counter intuitive because the UK system of counting only wins and losses seems like it would favor the armies that are not that hard, but can squeeze out a win, but in the US system that counts how badly you beat your opponent it would seem like the hard core lists would dominate even more.

Ah Stelek based drama, how I do not miss it.

First up whilst Stelek is undoubtedly a smart guy he is also the most abrasive, single minded I have ever had the misfortune to debate on the internet.

Completely unopen to any idea other than his own. As others have said, by all means read him because he is smart and does have insight but never attempt to debate him because it is just a useless waste of time.

As for why the BEST lists don't always win tournaments its because there are many, many factors in tournament play other than lists and player skill which can skew the result.

1. Local metagame - did everyone bring IG Mech this year and you brought the list you used to whoop horde orks last time. Ooops, not much luck there pulling out massacres.

2. Terrain - usually layers can't decide terrain at a tournie, but they do define it, causing arguments and the terrain may be set up with a massive bias i.e. the tables are so crowded mech struggles or so empty shooting lists dominate.

3. Missions - many tournaments use non-standard missions which may contain bias. Again a good player should be able to adapt but thats hard to do when somebody throws something at you that your list doesn't have the tools to achieve. For example I once played the old breakthrough mission at a tournament in 3rd ed, the one where you had to line up starting with heavies in a 6" wide 24" long corridor in the centre of the table on one side, then you had to move as many units off as possible off the other side. Attackers came on in turn 1 from any side the wished except behind you.

I was running mech-wolves vs raider lance spam DE. I pulled out a draw but if our positions had been reversed he would have massacred me, turn 1-2 all his raiders would have simply fown over me and off the board giving me 1-2 turns to kill as many as I ould with rhinos and las-cannons. On the table next to us the massive IG horde had to try and march through the teeth of an iron warriors SAFH army. Absolutely no chance whatsoever. Missions can simply srcew you.

4. Massacre system - in which you can win every game but lose the tournament because you had the misfortune to play good players and so only managed minor win, minor win, minor win whilst your mate played the local scrub round one and scored massacre, minor win, minor win.
Swiss system goes a long way to stopping this (only the first round can be the local scrub) and is in place in most tournies but unless we have some kind of international tournie seeding to decide match-ups from round 1 onwards massacres will always favour luck.

5. Luck - the game uses dice. It isn't chess, it isn't tennis. This is neither pure skill nor oure intellect but massively directed by luck. Luck turns a minor win into a massacre or reverse (my trukk and bike both passed a cover save and turned what would have been a massacre for my friend into just a minor victory for him). Look at the Ard Boyz winner. Even he accepted in his interview with BOLS that he probably won because he managed first turn every game with his alpha strike shooting list. Luck.

The better players with good armies will almost certainly win but you can't claim that 40K is a balanced competitive game whilst these problems exist.


But standardise terrain, standardise missions and remove the luck element and you are left with chess. You aren't playing 40K anymore and that's the problem. 40K inherently isn't designed for competitive tournament play. That many people do play it in tournies speaks more to me that people enjoy playing many games in one day and bragging rights than that it is suited for a tournament.

That is interesting to be sure.. Im curious how many results we have from US tournaments vs europe. It seems like the heats they have and the tournaments are better document due to the US having virtually all indy tournaments

Our large venues are documented on various webpages but not the small ones

to give everyone time to paint and build the uberlists, I invite you to come to conquest NW indi GT in January.

a "beat off" or "best of" list will not win this event or even get the most battle points, because they have only talk and no results.

And with this thread, November's "AMG WE ALL HAET STELEK HE NEEDS 2 DIE IN A FIAR" quota has been filled.

You won, grats on that. You just didn't do it with what some people consider an "optimal list". Did it work for you? Yes? Then obviously is IS optimal. For you.

People not agreeing with your choices is going to happen. I don't necessarily agree with your army choice but I don't care enough to go on and on about it. Just like if I won something with an army people didn't like I wouldn't care enough about their opinions to reply to them. Why exactly does this have you so up in arms if you take no stock in what he has to say?

Can we just drop it now, pretty please? This thread is so unnecessary that it is making my eyes hurt.

First, lemme say that you're a chump and got lucky Allen. Everyone at that tournament sucked. (j/k, congrats)

Now, to answer this question. I've got some opinions.

First I think that when you play a game of 40k, there is a lot more to look at that just who's got the best list. There's more to look at than who is the better player as well. Or who's matched up vs who. Or what the scenario is.

I personally think that all these things factor in together with luck to determine a winner but I think the most important thing to determine a 40k winner is exposure to play.

For an entire year I played my Grey Knight army exclusively at least once or twice a week. I took it to adepticon this last year and went undefeated in the RTT. I was EXTREMLY comfortable with my armies strengths/weaknesses.

You've played this Eldar army in question for a very long time now. You've had huge success with it. I played a very similar list at the end of 4e and the beginning of 5e....I gave up on it due to not being able to handle it in 5e. (perhaps I gave up to easily)

Stelek himself prides himself in going undefeated with a self proclaimed "crappy" DH list. I think its a safe assumption that Stelek has a HUGE exposure to play AND theory considering his online presence. I think that explains his success on that outing.

Then again, you've got many people subscribing to Stelek's 'best of' Theory but no results on the national level showing 'Best of' domination. Perhaps people pick up lists due to what they say on YTTH (because honestly, there is much quality posting there if you can get past all the self-righteousness) but dont see the domination that they expected right off of the bat because they dont yet understand how to "pilot" the list to its full potential.

Personally, I think comfort level and exposure to play are the most important factors to winning a game of 40k. List building is important, but it really doesnt trump experience. If you've got even luck, and equal exposure to play, SURE, the better list is probably going to come out on top.

But you've played this type of eldar army for years. It's no surprise to me that you won.

I dont think we're going to see a rash of "best-of" lists dominating the scene anytime soon. What we'll probably see is more of what we see now. That being, guys winning that are intelligent and play 40k A LOT. I think that this is the most important factor to winning. Army lists help, but there isnt any substitute for comfort and experience.

....and there are a lot of simple blowhards on YTTH's (here on dakka too but that behavior seems almost encouraged on that blog).

Lastly, if you play 40k A LOT, do you want to play someone elses idea, or do you want to play something suited to your own tastes. Since I personally think its exposure to 40k that wins games, it comes as no surprise to me that its not these alleged "better 5e lists" that we constantly see winning these "poorly run tournaments".

"poorly run tournaments" which should still be won by the more powerful and effective 5e lists if army building was as important as many people seem to think. Maybe the tournament was run poorly....you're still playing 40k. If your list is THAT much better you should probably still be winning your game regardless of the cruddy scenario or lack of terrain.

I'd like to remind everyone that attacks on Dakka members, past or present, are not allowed.

By all means use the thread to discuss the impact of different types of lists... But keep to the 'play nice' side of the line, or the thread will be stomped.

most of stelek's lists he posts, while good, don't strike me as overly impossible to beat...

however, i've taken some good ideas from there. I've never considered the rifleman variant dread, but it is really quite awesome

I can't see why the list is really good, I've spent literally hours going over it, played a couple of test games, and I just don't know what the deal is. I've even gotten a "casual-gaming" friend to play his Nids while I ran that one and I got rolled. Obviously, I need to find out why it works...

Blackmoor wrote:
So my question is, why are not the hardest lists dominating the US tournament scene?

Because the US tournament scene doesn't exist. When painting, comp, and sportsmanship scores dictate 50% of the outcomes of most tournaments what you have is a hobby competition, not a tournament. Making things worse is that US tournaments seem to have a hard-on for stupid, wonky scenarios. Chess players don't win competitions based on how pretty their pawns look. The NCAA championship isn't determined by whether or not the teams are polite to one another.

The tournament scene here is completely watered down and that's why you see garbage armies winning garbage tournaments.

Danny Internets wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:
So my question is, why are not the hardest lists dominating the US tournament scene?

Because the US tournament scene doesn't exist. When painting, comp, and sportsmanship scores dictate 50% of the outcomes of most tournaments what you have is a hobby competition, not a tournament. Making things worse is that US tournaments seem to have a hard-on for stupid, wonky scenarios. Chess players don't win competitions based on how pretty their pawns look. The NCAA championship isn't determined by whether or not the teams are polite to one another.

The tournament scene here is completely watered down and that's why you see garbage armies winning garbage tournaments.

I'm sorry, but I still dont buy this arguement.

Not when the top players on the results sheets are generally the ones that are winning all the games.

When the overall winners begin to frequently have two losses for the weekend...I'll start beleiving this sob story. As of right now the guys taking home the trophies generally are also kicking tail on the tables.

I agree that strange scenarios CAN make "killer" armies not as potent.. However as deadshane said the best players still win the most tournaments :p

Army list doesnt generally matter to the top players

Also, one can say that best sports + comp + painting "wins" the tournaments but we're not slowed.. Virtually everyone can simply look to see who scored the most battle points and know who had the best list and/or who the best player was

Top overall doesnt mean you played the best :p They still give prizes for top general

Danny Internets wrote:
Because the US tournament scene doesn't exist. When painting, comp, and sportsmanship scores dictate 50% of the outcomes of most tournaments what you have is a hobby competition, not a tournament. Making things worse is that US tournaments seem to have a hard-on for stupid, wonky scenarios. Chess players don't win competitions based on how pretty their pawns look. The NCAA championship isn't determined by whether or not the teams are polite to one another.

The tournament scene here is completely watered down and that's why you see garbage armies winning garbage tournaments.

Actually the tournament I won only had battle points to determine the winner.

After GW no longer used comp in their tournaments, most tournaments followed their lead and dropped comp and only Da Boyz Indy GT in your neck of the woods being one of the only exceptions.

Sportsmanship has been abandoned as well, and most the tournaments that still have it have a simple check list of expected behavior that everyone should get a perfect score on.

A few places still have a painting though, either player judged, independent judging with or without simple check list.

So what you are saying is that people who play hard lists are not as good painters as people who play lists that are not as hard?

Blackmoor wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
Because the US tournament scene doesn't exist. When painting, comp, and sportsmanship scores dictate 50% of the outcomes of most tournaments what you have is a hobby competition, not a tournament. Making things worse is that US tournaments seem to have a hard-on for stupid, wonky scenarios. Chess players don't win competitions based on how pretty their pawns look. The NCAA championship isn't determined by whether or not the teams are polite to one another.

The tournament scene here is completely watered down and that's why you see garbage armies winning garbage tournaments.

Actually the tournament I won only had battle points to determine the winner.

After GW no longer used comp in their tournaments, most tournaments followed their lead and dropped comp and only Da Boyz Indy GT in your neck of the woods being one of the only exceptions.

Sportsmanship has been abandoned as well, and most the tournaments that still have it have a simple check list of expected behavior that everyone should get a perfect score on.

A few places still have a painting though, either player judged, independent judging with or without simple check list.

So what you are saying is that people who play hard lists are not as good painters as people who play lists that are not as hard?

...its a nice thing to bring up so that you can "pass the buck" so to speak on why the "best" lists arent taking home the gold.

People, as a general rule, have trouble accepting responsibility for failure. Its much easier to come up with some faux reason why you failed to hit the mark.

Because they aren't Stelek.

I'm not saying that he's some kind of tactical genius, he just builds the lists he likes, and plays the lists he likes, he's thought about them in great detail (and talked about them on the Internet). When other people play them, they don't have the advantage of his brain. They look at the list on the table and constantly have to ask themselves "What's this unit supposed to do again? Oh right, Stelek wrote its for <this>, but, that isn't on the table right now....so, what should they do?"

They trap themselves into trying to think like someone they aren't. That is why 'his lists' played by his followers don't win too often.

Edit: On the other hand, people who have forged their own lists and put lots of their own thought into it know exactly what everything is supposed to do. Good generals can then make good calls, or get screwed over by dice (or sometimes both, but then they win anyways )

Probably because they A. under estimate the army because they think its weak, or B. they have good people playing with the 'Bad' armies. personally I think all he armies are good.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Ah Stelek based drama, how I do not miss it.

F
5. Luck - the game uses dice. It isn't chess, it isn't tennis. This is neither pure skill nor oure intellect but massively directed by luck. Luck turns a minor win into a massacre or reverse (my trukk and bike both passed a cover save and turned what would have been a massacre for my friend into just a minor victory for him). Look at the Ard Boyz winner. Even he accepted in his interview with BOLS that he probably won because he managed first turn every game with his alpha strike shooting list. Luck.

Bravely,

I never said that and this comment is inaccurate. I am part of Bols and yes the first turn helped but its not luck and any thought of thinking luck helps you win 9 games in a row is kind of silly.

Its like trying to apply Chaos theory here by saying luck was the only reason i won but after awhile you put it together and you see a pattern evolve.

Also, I agree with Brian that is usually a good idea to just ignore the Jerry Springer of 40k. He soaks and lives for drama like this.

Kirasu wrote:
As with any swiss system matchups are extremely important. Unlike say warhammer fantasy battle most of the "tough" armies have counter lists that can smack them silly.. PBS > Nob bikers and psyker defense + rate of fire can beat jetlocks

The tournaments themselves may also skew the results because believe or not .. not every tournament believes in the USA scale of massacres.

Win loss + a few bonus points makes the EXTREME lists sometimes less effective at bulldozing the competition as LOTs of armies can win but not a lot can score massacres 3 games in a row

I think the non-massacre system is a bit better. However i don't think it feels like it takes place in the 40k universe of heroic actions and crazy hth battles, it seems to me like it makes you want to play very conservatively. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Also it is important to note that you no longer gain massacres mostly through beating the other guy down in 2-3 turns like in 3rd and 4th editions. Alot of the armies that could do that do it while having weak scoring units(easy armies to cripple in the objective scenarios) or are easily countered(Nob Bikers). Now a major win or a massacre is like you played the UK scoring system, you just totally beat them that game instead of eeking out a win. You probably are doing it with a more balanced army and more often by taking objectives than simply wiping the guy off the board like in days past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:
When the overall winners begin to frequently have two losses for the weekend...I'll start beleiving this sob story. As of right now the guys taking home the trophies generally are also kicking tail on the tables.

Yeah it's so easy to top 10 or top 20 a 150 player tournament it's really not even funny. You can get wiped one game and tie a game and still slide into the top 10 with 3 major/massacre. If their was so much luck in the game you would see alot of seasoned vets frequently going 2-2-1 instead of their usual 4-0-1ish. There is really not nearly as much luck in 40k as people claim. When you watch someone massacre almost every game they play at a GT, GT after GT you will see that being prepared for battle is what really counts. Having a great list, being a great general with it, and playing the game in a way so that luck impacts you as little as possible.

Alot of Fantasy players haughtily say that their game is chess... well 40k isn't checkers, it's Go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

5. Luck - the game uses dice. It isn't chess, it isn't tennis. This is neither pure skill nor oure intellect but massively directed by luck. Luck turns a minor win into a massacre or reverse (my trukk and bike both passed a cover save and turned what would have been a massacre for my friend into just a minor victory for him). Look at the Ard Boyz winner. Even he accepted in his interview with BOLS that he probably won because he managed first turn every game with his alpha strike shooting list. Luck.

The better players with good armies will almost certainly win but you can't claim that 40K is a balanced competitive game whilst these problems exist.

Luck is what makes the game compelling, it is what makes it like gambling(poker, investment, insurance).

The Ard Boyz winner played an army that gambled big. If the gamble paid off it would pay off jackpot sized. It's interesting to note that an army that is more resilient to going first or second, less effected by special rules(like night fight) might have a higher percentage chance of winning a tournament. Also the longer the tournament the more and more his army relies on the luck of the draw. So it was a very wise choice for him to take, it could only be a better choice in a 2 round tournament.

Many people will point to a specific point in a game and say look how lucky that was. For example if my Njal, the last surviving member of my army in a kill points mission where my opponent could only win by killing all of my models didn't get hit and wounded by the only attack my opponent could make(TL MMelta) and failed his 4+ save on turn 7 I would have won that game. But it isn't why I lost, it is just one part of the whole game that started even before my models were deployed. What I am saying is if you look at the big picture, you will see so many things you can do to increase your edge over your opponent. Being mentally freed you can learn alot more when you stop cursing luck(I will one day learn to do this myself ). Looking back on the game afterward I saw many small things I had failed to take advantage of and at least one subtle blunder that could easily have won the day for me.

I think Bill Kim is an excellent example of keeping the game he is playing in that bigger perspective, he really seems to reign in the luck factor. Alot of people make moves that can fail dramatically and rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. Even if the math says that you should succeed almost every time variance can always rear it's ugly head.
I hate variance.

It really comes down to experience and what you play against. If I play against normal players, with an average army, I wont do too well at events. By average I not only mean not optimized, but a list I have not analyzed. A lot of these guys play other very talented players regularly. And they have used their armies for years.

Its experience. If I play an average eldar player at my LGS using an optimized internet list he will lose to me. If I play blackmoor using what is considered a non optimized army he will destroy me. Simply because he has a better feel for what works and what doesnt, and can spot my mistakes. I play people where I can win on autopilot just because they cannot capitalize.

And I do feel player skill has a lot to do. I used to wreck people at my LGS with a footslogging eldar list. It was different then blackmoors, but still a footslogging eldar army. Now I run mech elves, and do the same.

TL;DR, experience trumps list.

Darkwynn wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Ah Stelek based drama, how I do not miss it.

F
5. Luck - the game uses dice. It isn't chess, it isn't tennis. This is neither pure skill nor oure intellect but massively directed by luck. Luck turns a minor win into a massacre or reverse (my trukk and bike both passed a cover save and turned what would have been a massacre for my friend into just a minor victory for him). Look at the Ard Boyz winner. Even he accepted in his interview with BOLS that he probably won because he managed first turn every game with his alpha strike shooting list. Luck.

Bravely,

I never said that and this comment is inaccurate. I am part of Bols and yes the first turn helped but its not luck and any thought of thinking luck helps you win 9 games in a row is kind of silly.

Its like trying to apply Chaos theory here by saying luck was the only reason i won but after awhile you put it together and you see a pattern evolve.

Also, I agree with Brian that is usually a good idea to just ignore the Jerry Springer of 40k. He soaks and lives for drama like this.

Alright sorry maybe that wasn't quite fair, it was a paraphrase from memory after all and not even pretending to be a direct quotation.

Lets be clear here though, I'm not arguing that luck is the only or even the most crucial factor in 40k but it is a factor. To deny it isn't is to be burying your head in the sand. You say

"any thought of thinking luck helps you win 9 games in a row is kind of silly."

I say thinking that luck HASN'T played a factor in helping you win 9 games in a row is silly.

You could just have easily had had horrible dice rolling, failign every sinle roll to hit and wound. Whilst unlikely it is not into the realms of the impossible, merely the improbable. The dice govern everything ultimately and if your dice fail you you lose. What you bank on is that they'll be roughly statistically average but when they aren't there isn't a huge amount you can do.

I utterly steamrollered a friend of mine the other day. A friend that usually beats me and whom has never lost to me when he's faced me at a tourney and we're both bringing the a game. Did I suddenly learn some new trick that put me over the edge? Was he being sloppy and making mistakes? Nope, pure luck. He failed easy rolls for difficult terrain checks immobilising vehicles and preventing assaults, rolled low for a consolidate move leaving him in assault range, roleld patheticaly low for his armour saves, hits and wounds and basically got defeated by dice gods at every turn.

Lets be clear here. Lists, players, terrain, scenario and luck are all factors determining who wins a game. If I had to rank them I'd say that the order of importance is lists, players, scanario and terrain together and finally luck. Without the necessary tools in your list you lose i.e. no way to deal with AV14? Prepare to get stomped by 3landraider lists. No counter-assault defense or idea, watch horde orks storm all over you.

A good player can win with a good, average or excellent list. A bad player can take a good list and lose with it becasue they are a bad player but fundamentally you need a list with all the tools necessary to win the game (i.e. some weapon or unit that can kill every range of foe and some mechanic for getting them into place to do so) you lose.

As I said though, players make lists work. 2 identical armies facing off aginst each other will be won by the better player. That's chess though. But we can all agree bad player with good list will probably lost to good player with average list if not excellent player with bad list.

Player ability can mitigate scenario and terrain but these throw in factors and biases that may help one player more than another. They are therefore factors but ones trumped by player ability.

Finally luck. Good players can minimise the role luck plays but they cannot eliminate it. a good player is thinking, okay if this goes wrong, I can try this, if that goes wrong maybe I can try this, if that goes right I can move this up here but if it doesn't maybe I need to move it here instead, etc. Good lists have redundancies and good players use those to minimise luck. But what if everything goes wrong? what if all your contingency plans go tits up? Well you're buggered aren't you. Luck is the bottom line, the engine driving the game. We do all we can with lists and tactics to try and minimise it but you can never eliminate it.

So Darkwynn lets look more seriously at your circumstances.

For starters I like your list. There are changes I would make and small efficiencies and improvements but on balance that is a solid list I would be happy to run myself and more than a little unhappy to see across the table from me.

Secondly I don't doubt that you are a skilled general that knows how to run the army. Winning 'ardboyz is not a matter of pure luck. The winner must be skilled because, as I argue, skill trumps luck.

But, is your list or is your list not an alpha strike list? Is the idea not simply to kill your opponent with superior firepower long before he gets the chance to retaliate? It wasn't known as the leafblower for nothing. And do alpha strike lists or do they not benefit heavily from getting the first turn? Didn't you win first turn for most if not all your matches (memory is a little hazy here). Do yuo deny that winning first turn was a factor in how well your army did? dod you think you would have won as easily and to such a wide margin had you been forced to play 2nd in every single game?


And Brian whilst I totally understand your metaphor that luck makes the game compelling (like gambling) if you think poker is about luck all I want to say is that I quite fancy giving you a game of poker

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

Lets be clear here. Lists, players, terrain, scenario and luck are all factors determining who wins a game. If I had to rank them I'd say that the order of importance is lists, players, scanario and terrain together and finally luck. Without the necessary tools in your list you lose i.e. no way to deal with AV14? Prepare to get stomped by 3landraider lists. No counter-assault defense or idea, watch horde orks storm all over you.

This is another important part. I think many people try too hard to meta game. I went to adepticon a few years back with a mech eldar list ready to slaughter nids and marines. First round I played a guy by the name of Marc Parker, who had an ork horde. A friend who places high in quite a few events looked at Marc, looked at his army, and just laughed and walked away . Three horde ork players in a row, I placed second from last that event

Championship I played marines, necrons, and chaos. Steamrolled the first 2 and lost the last, though we had some terrain issues that worked in his favor. Regardless, I didnt prepare for everything. And thats what the best players do.

Look at blackmoore or darth digglers armies. Im not a big fan of blackmoors list, because it disagrees with my belief on how eldar should be played, but I respect it. I dont feel its weak, but it is not something I would play. Diggler on the other hand runs a marine army very similar to mine. And mine and his are both based on the idea of having a solution to every possible problem.

Because when it comes down to it you have to play the army. This isnt dawn of war. I cannot just spam the best units as fast as possible and overwhelm a good player. So the ideal army gives the player a solution to anything, preferably multiple solutions. Nob bikers? I have two vindicators and some TH terminators. Lootas/32 hormaguant squads? Ive got a thunderfire? Ironclads? I have 2 meltas in each tac squad. I just have to play the list right to win.

This gives me few excuses for losing too. Short of the dice absolutely hating me. Which is rare. Ive played games where over 5 turns 3 twin linked bright lances and 2 fire prisms managed to stun one land raider and shoot a gun off the either. But those are an extreme rarity. The chances of blackmoor having been pushed from major win to massacre over 5 games by dice are decent. But the chances of winning an event do to luck are extremely low.

Blackmoor wrote:So my question is, why are not the hardest lists dominating the US tournament scene?

Quite simply because the hardest lists on paper often are not the hardest lists on the table.

Eidolon wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

Lets be clear here. Lists, players, terrain, scenario and luck are all factors determining who wins a game. If I had to rank them I'd say that the order of importance is lists, players, scanario and terrain together and finally luck. Without the necessary tools in your list you lose i.e. no way to deal with AV14? Prepare to get stomped by 3landraider lists. No counter-assault defense or idea, watch horde orks storm all over you.

This gives me few excuses for losing too. Short of the dice absolutely hating me. Which is rare. Ive played games where over 5 turns 3 twin linked bright lances and 2 fire prisms managed to stun one land raider and shoot a gun off the either. But those are an extreme rarity. The chances of blackmoor having been pushed from major win to massacre over 5 games by dice are decent. But the chances of winning an event do to luck are extremely low.

Eidolon, I agree entirely with your assessment overall but I just wanted to highlight this last part because I think it is important.

Over the course of a game and over the course of a tournament luck should even out closer to the statistical average. But in one game and at particular moments in a game it can make a crucial difference.

I will give an anecdote from a recent tournament. I was using my orks against a friend of mine who plays Blood Angels. Said friend is undeinably a better player than I with several tournament wins udner his belt. Whilst I am an average player with only a few top 10/top 3 places at smaller tournies to my name.

Early in our game he outmanouvers me and gains the charge with Dante and the DC using corbs and Dante's ability at the same time. I lose a huge chunk of my army and 2 scoring units in one turn and I'm now on the backfoot playing for the draw. I continue to play for the draw and the ride of battle flows back and forth.

At the end of my turn 6 he has taken my objective but I have contested his with a single ork biker in close combat with 3 marines and, the mad dok from a nobz unit. Elsewhere I have an immobilised trukk.

The Mad dok goes down but nothing is close enough to his objective to get into cc. The trukk therefore takes all his spare remaining shooting and passes every single cover save called on it. Some shots don't grant cover but these either miss or fail to do anything but stun. In cc the bikers and marines bounce off each other with no losses. Dice rolls and the game ends. Minor Victory to him.

However had he had another turn or had the trukk failed 1 out of I think 5 cover saves and the biker died he would have tabled me and controlled 2 objectives for a massacre.

Some saves and a turn less (plus admittedly the tactical tide of the battle as I basically tried to frustrate him rather than play agressively) turns what could have been a massacre into a minor victory.

I don't think luck can win you matches in most games but it can turn a minor win into a major or massive win. For want of a few 3's on my part he lost a massacre. Now he went on to win the tournie overall (it was a local thing and not very big) but in a major tournie that lack of a massacre could have easily cost him a top standing.

augustus5 wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:So my question is, why are not the hardest lists dominating the US tournament scene?

Quite simply because the hardest lists on paper often are not the hardest lists on the table.

You have your show-ers and your grow-ers, eh?

Kudos to anyone that reads this wall of text. It started out as a short reply, and turned into a 20 minute long essay on 40k meta gaming. I do think it could add to the discussion though.

@bravelybravesirrobin

I find that I have had some serious setbacks in games due to luck, but thats rare. Maybe one in twenty games. Im in the same boat as you are. I almost always place top 3 in local and regional events, but thats it. Infact I think ive come in third the last 5 tournaments ive played in. Some due to bad rules, others due to terrible set backs like my seer council failing their re rollable leadership 10 check and running off the table. None due to opponents though, anyone who beats me is a cheater ( looking at you wrecking crew guys ) At the adepticon team tournament me and a friend played our eldar vs chaos. They had 5 zerkers out of 10 left, and if we knocked one of them off we could win as we could control the center objective. We shot that squad with a falcon, a squad of vibro cannons, a squad of 7 war spiders, and charged them with the spiders. Killed nobody and tied primary objective because of it.

None the less I think that the best players do what works best for them. They dont need a crutch in the form of a flavor of the month army to win. If you showed me blackmoors army on paper id think its outdated, and not very effective. The fact he won such a big event with it means either he is really good, or I have a really bad grasp of tactics (probably both). But it works for him. And in any field the best people will always exist outside of the curve rather then on its leading edge.

Im reading a book by a philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein, its called the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The man lived in a cabin, alone, on a small island in northern norway. He rowed to shore once a week for food and supplies and went back to his cabin to think and write. Most of us, when we want to think go to a library, or take a walk. He removed himself entirely from society. Now im a pretty smart guy, but im struggling to completely grasp the first page of this guys writings. So while what he was doing was strange, he was doing something right.

While I wouldnt compare blackmoor to wittgenstein on a personal level, I think a kind of comparison can be drawn in success. People who excel at something always do it their own way. They may learn off others, but they play the game how they want. I could run blackmoors list, but i would be at a loss for tactics. Its not my idea of eldar at all. I do a very similar thing with marines though. I feel that some person comes along with a new idea and it changes the game up drastically. The latest events have done that for lists, einstein did it for gravity, wittgenstein did it with language games. And for every person who excels at their own thing 100 people will copy cat them.

So what it boils down to is doing your own thing better then other people do theres. BJ Penn is a pretty good MMA fighter. And i heard him say something which i will now paraphrase. "You dont see me kick or punch a whole lot. I can grapple better then anyone at my weight class, its what I do. You cant show up to one fight and be a boxer and show up to the next as a wrestler. You have to do your thing as best you can, and force the other guy to fight your way."

To many people view 40k list building with the idea of taking the best stuff and spamming it. An army is an theoretical way of defeating somebody given the tools to do it. People go "oh wow thunderhammers those are good" so they take lots of them. They look at the tools, find the biggest shiniest, and then find a job. It should be the other way around with list building. You decide what you want to do, and then you get the tools for the job. I would not go out, buy a nice hammer and some nails, and find out my job is to be a gardner or an electrician.

I am switching my marines over the space wolves. Simply because I have always ran them as a gunline type army, with some counter assault. However the wolves give me far greater counter attack abilities, and better devs. The whole list is infantry, not a single armor value, I just feel they offer me the best tools for the job. So this new codex gives me a far greater meat grinder army, which is why I am using it. I would be a fool though to switch over simply because it has grey hunters for example. Thats getting greedy with units, rather then going for the best ideal army.

So let people run their mouths about how blah blah your army sucks you got lucky. Fact is you won the event, and they didnt. So some guy on the internet is talking about how you dont run good armies and what not. feth him. You can actually play well. Who cares? I can theoryhammer with the best of them. But I choke on the table top, often times I forget little things, and it costs me massacres and what not. Its internet tough guy syndrome. If I told you I have a blackbelt in 4 kinds of martial arts, benchpress 450 pounds, and can run 2 miles in 10 minutes. Oh and I am going to drive to your house and kick your ass, I would be laughed off the boards. And rightfully so. So who cares about some kingshit of an LGS theoryhammering out people who produce actual results army lists. While it does provoke good discussions, its the other people who make them worthwhile. At the end of the day, you won a snazzy foam bolter and they didnt.

Deadshane1 wrote:

I'm sorry, but I still dont buy this arguement.

Not when the top players on the results sheets are generally the ones that are winning all the games.

When the overall winners begin to frequently have two losses for the weekend...I'll start beleiving this sob story. As of right now the guys taking home the trophies generally are also kicking tail on the tables.

The "top players" are the top players because they consistently reach the top ranks of the garbage hobby competitions. They aren't the top competitive players, they're the top hobbyists.

And who are these "top players" who have been frequently winning national competitions this year? I'm not being facetious, I'd really like to know. While I haven't memorized the rosters of these major indie GTs, I've read the winners and don't recall seeing the same player twice yet.

Just clear me one thing 'cause I don't really get it.

These discussions always have comments along the lines "well, I guess he is a good player who won despite that sucky list."

Presumably, a good player would understand the difference between a good and a bad list, by definition.

Why would a good player then bring a lousy list into competition?

The army that won BoLScon did not place at the Big Waaagh. The IG army that won Ard Boys got to go first every game and had great matchups. Judging from your batreps Allan it came across as you did not play the caliber of player you would typically see at a GW GT or say Adepticon. Also maybe the east is in general stronger than the west?

G