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.

Poll suggested by xGhost4000x

I picked other. Because some armies are easier to play than others. So based on your army will determine how much skill you need to play that army to win.

There are various skill levels of players with the same army as well.

There is always an amount of luck in games that involve dice, cards etc.

1/3 rd army list / deployment ( pre game set ups )
1/3 rd skill and tactic
1/3 rd luck

No amount of skills can save you if you always fail to wound and fail armor saves.

A split. Depends on what you have, where you put it and a die roll.

It's based on luck, but you can improve or worsen the chance depending on what you take and what you try to do with it.

It's more based on making sound choices in my opinion. It takes a degree of knowing the stakes at hand and the possibilities and deciding on the best course of action. This comes from building the army list all the way down to playing it on the table.

The only exception is when you build an army and play it in a fluffy way. In which case, it's 100% fun and dramatics.

I would say it's more skill, but luck and army do play a part. GK (the internet Draigo lists) for example, a smaller army means "some" skill is needed to know what is important, but less luck as they are (IMO) OP. Then something like Eldar or DA need more skill to overcome the effects time has had on their armies.

I think that GW deliberately power up each new dex to encourage power players to buy a new army.

Things like GK terminators costing the same as SM terminators point for point doesn't look like an obvious one but ion game having them as troop choices is significant.

The Introduction of the stormraven and the valkyrie are two more obvious balance throws along with BAs getting Jump infantry in their troop choices for the same points as a FA from the SM dex.

GW just introduce a couple of game breakers in each dex so you are best off looking for these and including them in your army but beware they will cost you a small fortune to put into practice due to the less than hidden price policy of GW.

LunaHound wrote:1/3 rd army list / deployment ( pre game set ups )
1/3 rd skill and tactic
1/3 rd luck

No amount of skills can save you if you always fail to wound and fail armor saves.

Pretty much. You can have a rock solid list and strategy, but the dice can mess up everything.

Chance is exagerated. A Bloodthirster by example, should have more than 5/6 chances to kill a grot once hit. However, the grot should have more chances than 2/6 to hit the Daemon with its fireweapon.

Chance, with a bit of army thrown in very little skill needed.

Got the army with the best combat units? roll the dice right and you win.

warhammer is too full of gimmicks to be skillfull, if you want a game of skill, play rapid fire....

Sonophos wrote:I think that GW deliberately power up each new dex to encourage power players to buy a new army.

Things like GK terminators costing the same as SM terminators point for point doesn't look like an obvious one but ion game having them as troop choices is significant.

The Introduction of the stormraven and the valkyrie are two more obvious balance throws along with BAs getting Jump infantry in their troop choices for the same points as a FA from the SM dex.

They have had Assault squads since they were PDF (been playing BA since they went PDF), and while they did cost more (250pts for 10), so did there Tactical and Dev squads (190pts for 10). They are using the same equipment as every other chapter, so why should it cost more. Their rhino vehicles are different, so they do cost more. Why should they regular stuff?

My opinion is its rought 40:40:20 chance:army:skill

Salted Diamond wrote:

Sonophos wrote:I think that GW deliberately power up each new dex to encourage power players to buy a new army.

Things like GK terminators costing the same as SM terminators point for point doesn't look like an obvious one but ion game having them as troop choices is significant.

The Introduction of the stormraven and the valkyrie are two more obvious balance throws along with BAs getting Jump infantry in their troop choices for the same points as a FA from the SM dex.

They have had Assault squads since they were PDF (been playing BA since they went PDF), and while they did cost more (250pts for 10), so did there Tactical and Dev squads (190pts for 10). They are using the same equipment as every other chapter, so why should it cost more. Their rhino vehicles are different, so they do cost more. Why should they regular stuff?

The fact that they can claim objectives should at least add 5-10 per squad when compared to a comparable squad that can not as this makes the difference between winning and loosing a game. It's not about equipment and combat abaility but game mechanics.

If an SM assault squad sits on an objective and a BA assault squad sits on another at the end of a game the BA player wins as they are troops; it doesn't matter what they are armed with. The units have the same cost so this is therefore either deliberate overpowering or sloppy design by GW.

Sonophos wrote:

Salted Diamond wrote:

Sonophos wrote:I think that GW deliberately power up each new dex to encourage power players to buy a new army.

Things like GK terminators costing the same as SM terminators point for point doesn't look like an obvious one but ion game having them as troop choices is significant.

The Introduction of the stormraven and the valkyrie are two more obvious balance throws along with BAs getting Jump infantry in their troop choices for the same points as a FA from the SM dex.

They have had Assault squads since they were PDF (been playing BA since they went PDF), and while they did cost more (250pts for 10), so did there Tactical and Dev squads (190pts for 10). They are using the same equipment as every other chapter, so why should it cost more. Their rhino vehicles are different, so they do cost more. Why should they regular stuff?

The fact that they can claim objectives should at least add 5-10 per squad when compared to a comparable squad that can not as this makes the difference between winning and loosing a game. It's not about equipment and combat abaility but game mechanics.

If an SM assault squad sits on an objective and a BA assault squad sits on another at the end of a game the BA player wins as they are troops; it doesn't matter what they are armed with. The units have the same cost so this is therefore either deliberate overpowering or sloppy design by GW.

Then why did Dark Angels Assault and Terminator squads cost more than SM? They are 100% identical to codex but cost more (more than 4th and 5th). Deathwing can become troops, but only with Belial, who you have to pay for. So by you argument, these units should be better because they cost more? You also never hear people complain that DA tactical squads (of 10) are 5 points cheaper than regular SM.

(I think we should start a new thread about this to not get yelled at for hijacking this one)

Hmm... I agree. I was commenting on Blood Andels not Dark angels. My original point was that If you have an army that has the latest Dex you tend to have an advantage.

Skill for me.

A friend of mine ALWAYS has bad luck, and i ALWAYS have good luck playing against him. It always seems to be going great for me, yet i have NEVER won a game against him! He always manages to find a rule or trick to win in the last turn!!

chaos0xomega wrote:My opinion is its rought 40:40:20 chance:army:skill

Roughly agreed. I'll go with 50:30:20.

I don't think army comes into it as much as luck and skill. I mean I know a player who can beat competitive armies with Nids and Tau pretty easily.
Skill does go along way, and you know 'You make your own luck'. Any army can beat any other army to be honest, obviously some are better at beating certain armies, but still if you have the right tactics and movements in a game (skill) then you can easily beat any army with yours.

Luck and army will definately have a huge role in the game but I believe skill is definitely the game winning skill. I would rate luck over army.

I feel that it's about 40:30:20 (Skill, Army, Chance). Mainly because much of the game tends to be skillfully tilting the odds in your favor - for example, 10 marines charging a Rhino may have a chance of killing it, but 2 marines firing meltaguns at it would have better odds of doing so. Similarly, I rarely see one squad charge an equally matched squad and hope that the dice roll in the first squad's favor - it's all about tilting the odds by softening it up first.

I mainly put skill first because Tau, Nids and Daemons are definitely not real strong armies on their own, but a player at my FLGS can flat-out table so-called "stronger" armies without breaking a sweat because of his great deal of experience and skill. Having a good army and having strong luck are important, but having a strong tactical mind and a lot of experience can dramatically alter the outcome of a game.

depending on the army will improve your chances of winning, given that the player is knowledgeable and built a good list just as his opponent did.

I say it is skill because if the same two people play several times, usually the more skilled player will win.

You can have the army and the skill, but if you can't roll the dice then you're

Dice usually handle them selves, though given, some rolls are more important than others and if you know how to cheat and roll 4+ every time then it has become more than just a game.

Split Evenly between Chance, Skill and Army

Would have to say that it involves everything.

Chris

Chance.

It is a dice game with more complex rules. If you have hot dice, any army can win, no matter what the enemy tactics. If you have cold dice every army can lose, no matter the other conditions.

Dice bases wargames will always be dependant upon chance, there is simply no getting away from it. The skill element is based around determining the odds of a certain action being succesful and acting accordingly. The chance of winning in an ideal wargame should be something like 70% skill, 20% chance and 10% (or less) on list selection.

40K is far from an ideal game however and list selection is 50%, if not more, due to how unbalanced the game is.

The chance part is iffy. It can be as little as 0% up to 100%. You can have games where rolls absolutely rule the game, but in other games you can roll 37 penetrating hits on 5 vehicles and get nothing but Shaken/Stunned results (happened to me last weekend).

Id say skill over army list as a skilled opponent can do well even with a less than great list, but a newbie might not be able to do well with a netlist (unless hes playing GK then they just have to point and click the army).

I chose other.... you roll dice, It's always down to luck!
you could roll 1's all game you could roll 6's all game, it's all down to the roll of a dice.

Skill 55%
Chance 35%
Army 10%

I firmly believe that skill is by far the deciding factor. no matter what army you have a person that Knows the game and their army will almost always woop your no matter how well your list is tuned.
(unless you roll all 6's and they roll all 1's and i have yet to see that ever )