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.

This might seem like an odd poll, but how would you rate your skill level at 40k? Not whether you play competitively or not, but how you'd rate your skill if you brought the best list you can personally come up with.

I was just curious, because it seems that anyone that talks like they play competitively thinks they're great at the game. Even from personal experience anyone I play in a competitive game thinks they're awesome at the game, even if I give them a good thrashing.

I personally think I'm not that great, voted sub-par, I can win a decent bit of games but I'll never be great at the game.

I'm pretty poor. I am a lot better at X-wing and Bolt Action but 40k is the one I dump the most money into.

As long as I don't get impatient and want to roll dice as often as possible, I'm above average. When I say screw it and make dumb decisions, I'm WAY below average. "Yes I'll throw my Carnifex at Dante and Sanguinary Guard. Hammer of Wrath will be awesome! Fluffy as feth!" But if I pay attention and play right, I can do pretty friggin well.

What is good ?

- Winning games in cutting edge tournaments ?
- Balancing your army so that you have nice casual games ?
- Being able to win with an inferior army ?
- Having a perfectly painted army ?
- Predicting the meta and succeed to build a good list vs it?
-Managing not to overspend your hobby budget ?

 oldzoggy wrote:
What is good ?

- Winning games in cutting edge tournaments ?
- Balancing your army so that you have nice casual games ?
- Being able to win with an inferior army ?
- Having a perfectly painted army ?
- Predicting the meta and succeed to build a good list vs it?
-Managing not to overspend your hobby budget ?

I mean, I thought I made it fairly obvious with things like "few people can beat me" and "if you go all in", do I need to be more explicit in my explanation next time? Did you think I meant "few people can beat me at managing not to overspend my hobby budget if I go all in"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or did you just not read the post, which clearly stated

how you'd rate your skill if you brought the best list you can personally come up with

I don't think skill level is exactly the same as how good you are at 40k.

I think being good at 40k means you can have fun playing the game, and ensure your opponent does to. You can understand what the other players want from the game and collaborate to have something you will both enjoy. Being able to share hobby tips and stories is a big part of being 'good' at 40k.

That said, obviously there is a competitive element to 40k. Whether you 'roleplay' your forces and try to make armies that match the fluff in terms of list composition and tactics, or whether you view the game as an intellectual exercise in creating the ultimate army/implementing the winningest moves the objective is generally to have your army 'defeat' the opposition.

In answer to the question, I don't think I am particularly skilled at 40k. I'm not interested in squeezing every last Bhp (break hobby power) out of my list, and I don't know many shenanigans in terms of using my lists. That said, I have a basic understanding of how to complete objectives so while I might be terribad, I'm not completely hopeless against people that forget about the objectives :p.

Few people can beat me, but I suspect there are still a small number out there who can. I wish I could get to some tournaments. Even local ones.

I can only say good, as I haven't been to a big-name tournament. Rebuilding armies from scratch is a terrible process though, time-consuming AND money-consuming. If I had that in order with maybe a little more practice (I'd practice and math it out for hours if I were going to one), maybe you'd see my name in the Top 8-16 someday!

I'm hot garbage, check it and see
I got strategies that make others laugh with glee
Come on Orky do you do more than die?
I'm hot garbage, hot garbage

All joking aside I voted being literal trash because I want to be good at the game but I play suboptimal stuff all the time, get frustrated when things go poorly, and lack the foresight to see how I can pull out a victory when the chips are down. Usally what saves my games is my "zog it" attitude that I go for blood with my healthy units while I use my wounded units to hide on objectives or tar pit. 75% of my victories are probably more to do with luck or opponent error than any masterful planning or movement.

I'm average - sub par but my dice rolling skills are dire and I'm constantly boned by them. If I could improve those, I might improve overall.

Pretty bad. I put it down to Khorne bringing down the red mist and clouding my judgement...

I mean, I thought I made it fairly obvious with things like "few people can beat me" and "if you go all in", do I need to be more explicit in my explanation next time? Did you think I meant "few people can beat me at managing not to overspend my hobby budget if I go all in"?

I can pick a tournament winning list, and crush all local players with it. I can even list tailor it and run multiple test runs on vassal so that I know for sure that he doesn't have a chance in winning. Would this make me a good player. Na not really.

The question van "I crush most of my opponent, with the most powerful list I can think of?" has little to do with how good of a payer am I in my mind.

how you'd rate your skill if you brought the best list you can personally come up with

How much skill would I need to have to pulverise my average opponent with that list ? my guess would be not much at all. You do have to know the basics of how your army works, but you will most likely not have to lure your opponent into an elaborate trap, in order to win. You would possible even be allowed to make some minor mistakes.

Well this is a difficult question to answer, its subjective and prone to change over time and very easy to answer disingenuously. That said I selected the second option.

I enjoy the competitive scene of 40k (if there is one) as a result I constantly find myself nose deep in unit reviews, battle reports, army lists, tips and tactics forums and everything in between. I take it upon myself to try and learn every codex not for any competitive gain but simply because I enjoy it and this has an effect on how I play the game.
whether by platitude or fact, members at my club have frequently told me that I'm very good at the game and last year I won the same club's 40k league.
I try to play at least once a week and only lost 6 games last year using Eldar, Marines and Harlequins.

So yeah I'm rarely beaten, but I attribute that more to perseverance, army list, faction, countless battle reports and perhaps more crucially this site and it's members rather than just skill. There is a wealth of information here and I try to make the most of it, whether by research or discussion... so thanks guys and gals.

Not to brag, but I'm undefeated since the 6th Edition Tau Codex dropped.*

Again with the incorrect assumptions.

I win most of my games... but you don't have to bring a good list to beat me, you have to be good at the game.

I hate this assumption that it's the models you put on the table that determine your skill. It's blatantly false.

I win most of my games with Sisters of Battle.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Again with the incorrect assumptions.

I win most of my games... but you don't have to bring a good list to beat me, you have to be good at the game.

I hate this assumption that it's the models you put on the table that determine your skill. It's blatantly false.

I win most of my games with Sisters of Battle.

Very true, skill in 40k should not solely be measured in the miniatures you take, but the assumption is not inherently false, you can be a very skilled player but will still have trouble trying to win with a badly optimised list. In fact I would say that it would be impossible to separate the models you take and the strategy you utilise, as a direct result it can be argued that the models you take reflect your skill and knowledge of the game and your codex. That said, simply by fielding a powerful list with ‘OP’ units won’t guarantee you will win if you don’t know how to use them or how they’ll interact with the table and your opponent.

As cliché or as forced as it sounds but I prefer to think about it from an ‘Art of War’ standpoint:

- Knowing yourself: Your rules, codex, units and list
- Knowing the Enemy: Your enemy’s list, interaction with the table and playstyle

Or if I’m butchering my understanding of that then at the very least it’s a strategy vs tactics discussion…

Most armies can build a competitive list, but that doesn't mean two competitively built lists are equal.
I would argue the army you play is about 10% of your chance of winning.
The list you build with that army is about 50% of your chance of winning.
The skill of the player is about 40% of your chance.
I'm a mediocre player, win most of my games against other mediocre players because of my list. Lose to any half decent player.
All the above is imo of course

I'm absolutely terrible. I play maybe 1-2 games per year, and when that happens so much time is spent reviewing rules and trying to read how to actually play this incredibly convoluted game, that I can't focus on strategy and tactics, and just blunder my way directly into my opponents hands, and promptly lose.

I find the game to be a super-awkward recitation of rules. It's not fun.

I like the idea of playing 40k much more than the reality of playing 40k.

In competitive games I decimate everything and everyone, in friendlys, its closer but still the same.

I would say I am a good player. I understand the rules well, have a working knowledge of most every army, take time to review the meta, try to keep up to date, math hammer things out to try and optimize things, etc...etc....

But that does not mean I win every game. Especially maelstrom games. The random nature makes it extremely hard to consistently outplay opponents, no matter how good your list is.

I have had games where I am blowing my opponent off the board but am losing in objectives because of the mission or because of poor objective draws for me or great draws by an opponent.

Couple that with dice rolls, and I advise anyone to take what people claim win and lose records to be with a large grain of salt.

Example. Yesterday at my LGS we played a team game each person brought 1850. It was a friendly game, I had Guard/inquisition/Skitarii, and was Allied with KDK. We were matched up against 30k Militia, and salamanders/guard. We rolled the scouring. All of the high point objectives happened to be on our side of the table. So I was able to sit still and blast away while the KDK stopped any units that got too close. out of our 3700 points we only lost 8 total models. 5 CSM 1 Possessed 1 Skitarii infiltrator, and a Bloodthirster. And they were nearly tabled by turn 3 and gave up. Does that make us better than our opponents? Not necessarily. The randomness of the mission/objectives /and hot dice won us that game.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
I'm absolutely terrible. I play maybe 1-2 games per year, and when that happens so much time is spent reviewing rules and trying to read how to actually play this incredibly convoluted game, that I can't focus on strategy and tactics, and just blunder my way directly into my opponents hands, and promptly lose.

I find the game to be a super-awkward recitation of rules. It's not fun.

I like the idea of playing 40k much more than the reality of playing 40k.

That makes an awful lot of sense to me too - and I play every 2 or 3 weeks...

I can't tell anymore.

I am really good at harlequins, average with orks and guard and terrible at anything that features power armor or Death Stars. Pretty much purely an MSU player-good at gauging risk vs reward when my damage potential is easy to calculate in my head, and good at knowing which pieces to sacrifice and which to protect. But I really overextend when my forces are any kind of durable.

I'm relatively new to 7th but I have some background in 4th and 5th. I've also been playing strategy games since my youth so I would consider myself a pretty avaerage player despite my few games played.

I'm laughably bad, especially considering I play one of the commonly-held "overpowered" armies. Mostly, I'm just inexperienced. I've only been playing for a few months.

I like the look of the bell curve.

In an ideal world, with perfect sampling, you should end up with something looking like a normal pure bell. This one is leaning towards “better then average”. And honestly, that’s not surprising. Dakka, while a broad base of players, is still just a fraction of the hobby overall. I suspect that people come to forums to learn how to play better, get advice, etc. By exchanging ideas, tactics, list ideas and criticisms I’d hope that we’d be better players then “average”. Plus a lot of us here have been playing a while.

When I voted I expected the answer to be more skewed towards the high end. Most people think they are above average generally. Nice to see some honest, self aware people on the bottom of the curve. But given time and experience, you can fix that.

I’m average myself.

Allow me to direct your attention to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's pretty easy to be really good at Warhammer 40k:

Step 1: Buy the most broken codex.
Step 2: Spam the most broken units in that codex.
Step 3: Find players who are doing neither 1 nor 2.

It's so easy even complete newbs can do amazingly well!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Again with the incorrect assumptions.

I win most of my games... but you don't have to bring a good list to beat me, you have to be good at the game.

I hate this assumption that it's the models you put on the table that determine your skill. It's blatantly false.

I win most of my games with Sisters of Battle.

Nobody thinks SoB are a bad army though. Just mediocre and incredibly monobuild.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Allow me to direct your attention to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Plato's dialogues are full of examples of this. So pervasive is this effect that the platonists considered enlightened ignorance a kind of prerequisite for philosophical inquiry.