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 point was not that poker and 40K are similar. The point is that poker is heavily luck-based, yet a highly skilled player can use that skill to make a difference because poker is played over a lot of hands, thus giving him more skill-based events and opportunities for that skill to make a difference. Play poker over one hand, and the winner is determined entirely by luck; you need lots of hands for skill to make the difference.

40K does not have a lot of skill-based events over the course of a game by comparison to other competitive sports or games. It's just not that deep a game.

I have just read the first post so if my argument has been discussed already sorry for being lazy of reading.

Luck is a big factor in 40k for sure but I don't buy that it increases with level of skill. Two beginners making tons of misstakes probably wins or loses based on luck a lot also. In one game they may get lucky with that their list beats their opponents (equally unbalanced but in a non-favorable way). They might also be doing a lot of movement and decisions "on random" which can lead to that they take turns in winning playing the same list mainly based on luck. Of course misstakes made based on random moves gradually transitions to knowledge and finally they reach the high level play you describe.

But part of it is to be able to cope with an unfortunate roll and adapt to the situation instead of blaming it on bad luck.. it can turn around (still not saying luck isnt a big factor).

I'm a little annoyed.

I agree that in a perfect game, against a perfectly equal opponent, with mirrored armies, where neither makes a mistake....that the dice will determine the game.

That game doesn't exist. However, that's not the argument that's being made about luck - its that the higher that player skill gets, the more that luck factors in.

That's exactly backwards. Its the opposite. I consider myself to be right at the freakin' top of the pile. When I get pitted against someone else of my caliber...and the skill level at the table is phenomenal, luck literally plays no factor in the technical gameplay. It comes down to maneuver and exploitation.


I'd even say this: The *ONLY* role that luck has in higher level gameplay is in smoothing over the consequences of a mistake. I made XX mistake, if I get lucky, it won't hurt me. At the highest *humanly* possible levels of gameplay, luck never rears its head - until a player forces it to by making a bad decision.

MrEconomics wrote: Most reasonable random variables approach normality at a speed that is proportional to the square root of the number of trials, which is rather slow once you have more than a few trials.

Question: so if my non-math-person understanding of this is right, then aren't we looking at a large difference between--I guess it's "normality"--with, for example, the 1 or 2 dice thrown by a single shot weapon, versus the 6 or 7 shots thrown by groups of multi-shot weapons? Because the single-shot weapon trials are so small that even the square root of the multi-shot weapon trials will be maybe two or three times bigger proportionally?

Like a 4-shot gun approaches normality at twice the rate of a 1-shot gun?

There is a huge amount of skill. While luck is in play a experience player will win at least 5 out of 6 times against inexperienced players. Luck will always be a factor there will be games you roll nothing but ones, and your opponent nothing but 6's.

Take my last game, only a single melta gun got a shot off that managed to hit, my opponent had at least 6 CSM's with meltas against my DE. Yes I had night shields so he couldn't get the extra d6 for damage but he simply missed, and when me made armor rolls for the same melta equiped troopers all died. It was just luck I had all 3 raiders and 2 ravagers left at the end of the game. Normally our games are quite close. I destroyed him that game though.

The previous game, he stomped both my lord and lelith into the ground (my lord failed my 2nd invuln save).

It may be a simplification but it does point out how a dice roll can have a severe impact on the game. A person can state that a skilled player attempts to mitigate the dice----and that isn't anything vastly illuminating. Of course they do.

Following that train of thought though----a skilled player will also take advantage of poor dice rolls on their opponents behalf---else they wouldn't be a good player.

To use Sourclams example, if I'm playing my friend and I manage to blow up both of his Land Raiders with two Las Cannon shots----thus forcing his Terms to walk the remainder of the game----if I don't win, then I've made some serious, serious mistakes. Provided I have skill however, I'm going to take advantage of the luck of the dice and press home my 'lucky' advantage. My friend on the other hand is going to be forced into less than desirable decisions by the fate of the dice---which could further my advantage.

TL;DR version, great post Redbeard and I'm in agreement.

Redbeard wrote:In terms of quantifying what the skill numbers mean, you could simply say, "that's how many mistakes were made".

It's probably an oversimplification, as mistakes are not all of the same value, but what if you assigned each mistake a rating. A ten-point mistake would be something critically bad, while a one-point mistake might be shooting in the wrong order, thereby missing out on one extra possible casualty.

The overall math remains the same. Two players who each make 5 points worth of mistakes (assuming we correctly assign point values to mistakes) are likely to have their game decided by luck.

Here's a scenario.

Two players are in the same situation. They've got one shot left, a lascannon. It can take a high-percentage shot at a fully loaded enemy transport that needs to be stopped this turn, or a low percentage shot at a land raider that is further away, and that has blown smoke.

The skilled player, recognizing the situation, fires at the rhino, but misses. The poorer player fires at the land raider, and despite the odds, immobilizes it.

Both players are now subject to whatever the rhino was going to do. But one player is in a much better position for three turns from now.

Where is your skill now

So far everyone here pretty much seems to be in agreement, except dashofpepper, who probably has a vested interest in being viewed as some sort of tactical genius, and scuddman, who appears to be creating arguments out of thin air.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'd even say this: The *ONLY* role that luck has in higher level gameplay is in smoothing over the consequences of a mistake. I made XX mistake, if I get lucky, it won't hurt me. At the highest *humanly* possible levels of gameplay, luck never rears its head - until a player forces it to by making a bad decision.

This simply can't be true without the inverse also being true; at a high level of gameplay luck can invert a non-mistake.

Real Example from an 'Ard Boyz R2 Semi: Buddy of mine has 15 Hammernators within the umbrella of a Null Zone Librarian. He assaults a 10 man blob of Hammernators plus Lysander.

Buddy puts 18 wounds on the squad, which should be about eight dead Hammernators and 1 wound on Lysander. In return he should take about 3 unsaved casualties.

Opponent makes something like 15 3++ saves, rerolling for another 14 3+ saves. He loses 3 models with 1 wound on Lysander. Buddy fails 6/14 3++ saves, losing combat, falling back, getting escorted off the table.

Would you honestly say it was a 'mistake' to have assaulted when you've got numerical superiority and a vicious support debuff in your favor?

Unfortunately Dash seems to be ignoring or trivializing the random element of the game in his assessments about "luck". That is, he posits that with equallly skilled players, the random factor will not be determinative- it will be the quality of play. This, of course, does not account for times when both players play comparably and yet one still wins significantly. By dash's theory, these should almost always be draws and always be draws or very close games. Likewise, when one player plays better than another by a small margin at equal skill levels, this should almost always result in victory.

He is treating the game more like a non-random element game (chess) than a dice based game. Since, at best, a dice game approaches normalized results, this approach is flawed.

Sourclams makes a very good point- in a real game, an unfavorable roll (or series of rolls) can defeat even very sound decisions. That is the risk of randomized results, especially with relatively high variability like a single d6. Another example- I watched a skilled player play a less than tactically adept one. The less skilled player shot the more skilled's smoke protected LR full of death with a lascannon. Of course, the lowly lascannon exploded the LR and killed a depressing amount of the terminators inside. It was a game shifting event based purely on luck. It does not mean it would consistently happen, but it is possible, and does on occasion. Interestingly, the more games played, the more likely such statistical anomalies are to occur in any given game.

It also stands to reason that if two players are playing an equivalent skill, luck (IE favorable rolls) would be a potentially huge determinate of the result.

jmurph wrote:, an unfavorable roll (or series of rolls) can defeat even very sound decisions. That is the risk of randomized results, especially with relatively high variability like a single d6. Another example- I watched a skilled player play a less than tactically adept one. The less skilled player shot the more skilled's smoke protected LR full of death with a lascannon. Of course, the lowly lascannon exploded the LR and killed a depressing amount of the terminators inside. It was a game shifting event based purely on luck. It does not mean it would consistently happen, but it is possible, and does on occasion. Interestingly, the more games played, the more likely such statistical anomalies are to occur in any given game.

Yes, it is possible for a single lascannon shot to penetrate a land-raider, explode it, and nuke some of the terminators inside. Or alll of them. THat's a "Lucky shot."

My argument is that its only a "lucky shot" because the guy with the landraider full of terminators put all their eggs in one basket, such that a single die roll or the loss of a single model *can* influence the game. Which is a matter of skill. In building a list. I'm not ignoring or trivializing the random elements of the game, just pointing out that the WRONG associations are being made to them.

I've been to four tournaments in the last two months. 12 games. I've won all 12. In 10 of the 12 games, I tabled my opponents. In one of the remaining two, my opponent had a single model left on the board - stuck in close combat with me for 4 turns and I couldn't get rid of it. In two of those 12 games, I lost nothing. Not a single unit. In 7 of those 12 games, I scored perfect victory conditions. Primary, secondary, tertiary, and bonus points.

The theory in this thread requires that my opponents are either extremely bad, the worst kind you can put on the table, or that I am incredibly lucky, or both. This applies to *all* the top players I know and that I've met in my travels and keep in touch with.

Its simply not the case. My opponents are *not* incredibly bad. I've not been incredibly lucky. I've been rather *unlucky* in my dice, which is why there's a 6 page thread about how I can fix the dice to trivialize outliers with them in Dakka Discussion.

Here's the truth of it: A lucky die roll doesn't matter in a game with me. I play simple army lists that focus on redundancy and multi-focus roles. So a Lascannon gets a lucky shot, blows through my battlewagon, negatves my KFF, and explodes it.

So what? Happens all the time. That's why there's only 18 boyz instead of 20 in the wagon next door, so that my KFF or Ghazghkull can jump into the next wagon over and the whole thing can keep trukking. So I'm playing DE and I lose two ravagers - 2/3 of of my ranged anti-tank in the first turn. So what? That's why EVERY OTHER UNIT in my WHOLE army is capable of killing a tank.

I'm not ignoring the random element of the game. I'm just noting that at greater skill levels - of which there are plenty of people - particularly notable dice rolls are irrelevant to the game.

Now, if my opponent rolls such that every dice hits, every dice penetrates, I fail every save, and he explodes all my vehicles......I'm going to say that was a damned unlucky game. But that's a lot of dice rolling needing a precise series of events to happen, which is extremely statistically unlikely. The kind of luck you guys are talking about isn't the theoretical "You could roll 10 sixes in a row" but the "Lucky shot, unlucky save, lose a few vehicles, dual landraiders gone....." Letting those kind of things influence your game is a matter of your skill in allowing or disallowing those events to become meaningful.

Dash, You're repeating the mantra "I'm awesome so luck doesn't exist" without actually addressing any of the key points made with regards to the fact that variance in unit performance does exist, and not just in the outliers you claim it does.

40k, despite what your ego is screaming at you, is not a deep game - certainly not one deep enough that you can just contain enough balls-to-the-wall awesomeness to win all of your games vs. a bunch of people that you insist are equally as good as you even though you beat them 99% of the time (when you apparently roll 'one' 30% of the time, which has hilarious implications). Assuming everyone is bringing the correct amount of redundancy (as they should be) then the only differentiating factor between two equally skilled players will be how the units actually perform in their respective combat rounds. There is no way to reliably refute this (or at the very least, repeating "But I'm really good at this game! I swear! Therefore variance in unit performance is always irrelevant!" Is doing a piss-poor job of it)

There are only a few real possibilities:

You and these people that can only beat you 1% of the time perform equally well against the market, but have lists that are unfavorable matchups vs. you (in which case, assuming they are making a correct decision in bringing their list in the first place may be a stretch, but either way in this scenario the list imbalance does the heavy lifting), and would reliably beat you close to 50% of the time if you both had completely open access to whatever you wanted to bring over the course of, say, 20 games.

You're rolling better than you think you are (From your posts in the dice thread I'm inclined to believe that confirmation bias, fueled and boosted by the "lol dash rolls bad" trend that your gaming group has likely adopted, makes you think your overall spread of every die roll in a given game is less statisically likely than it really was)

Your opponents are worse than you insist they are. This is also likely, given that:
40k is not a complicated game
You claim over a 95% win ratio to them

The people here disagreeing with you have raised some outstanding points in favor of their position and so far all you really have is "But I win alot and I think I'm really good and I think my opponents are good too therefore luck does not exist"

MikeMcSomething wrote:Dash, You're repeating the mantra "I'm awesome so luck doesn't exist" without actually addressing any of the key points made with regards to the fact that variance in unit performance does exist, and not just in the outliers you claim it does.

40k, despite what your ego is screaming at you, is not a deep game - certainly not one deep enough that you can just contain enough balls-to-the-wall awesomeness to win all of your games vs. a bunch of people that you insist are equally as good as you even though you beat them 99% of the time (when you apparently roll 'one' 30% of the time, which has hilarious implications). Assuming everyone is bringing the correct amount of redundancy (as they should be) then the only differentiating factor between two equally skilled players will be how the units actually perform in their respective combat rounds. There is no way to reliably refute this (or at the very least, repeating "But I'm really good at this game! I swear! Therefore variance in unit performance is always irrelevant!" Is doing a piss-poor job of it)

There are only a few real possibilities:

You and these people that can only beat you 1% of the time perform equally well against the market, but have lists that are unfavorable matchups vs. you (in which case, assuming they are making a correct decision in bringing their list in the first place may be a stretch, but either way in this scenario the list imbalance does the heavy lifting), and would reliably beat you close to 50% of the time if you both had completely open access to whatever you wanted to bring over the course of, say, 20 games.

You're rolling better than you think you are (From your posts in the dice thread I'm inclined to believe that confirmation bias, fueled and boosted by the "lol dash rolls bad" trend that your gaming group has likely adopted, makes you think your overall spread of every die roll in a given game is less statisically likely than it really was)

Your opponents are worse than you insist they are. This is also likely, given that:
40k is not a complicated game
You claim over a 95% win ratio to them

The people here disagreeing with you have raised some outstanding points in favor of their position and so far all you really have is "But I win alot and I think I'm really good and I think my opponents are good too therefore luck does not exist"

It’s so hard to have a civil internet conversation because people misinterpret so many things and you don’t have a change to correct them before they write a lengthy response based on their misinterpretation.

I think we all agree on the following points.
Luck is A factor.
List building and taking bad match ups into consideration is a skill.
Finding ways to minimize the impact of risk/luck is a skill.
If all else was truly equal luck would be the deciding factor.

I think we disagree on the following points.
All else is never truly equal.
If something else is unequal it is more likely to win/lose the game than luck.
The odds of someone having luck truly bad enough to cost them the game are extremely small.
Things like having a raider blown up, a key unit destroyed, getting a bad match up in a tournament, etc are more attributable to skill than luck.

I don’t know how else to resolve this other than to say the two sides disagree on the second set of assumptions.

I would argue that the true skill is reducing the role of luck in any outcome. This is done by building a redundant list where one "lucky" shot is going to do you in or one series of "bad" dice rolls is going to totally undermine your chances to win. "Luck" tends to enter into a decisive win or loss only because we are taking a risk of Luck entering into it. Such as an alpha strike list where you will dominate if you go first but then proceed to go second in 3 out of 4 rounds of a tournament. Or the LR Crusader with 5 Terminators and 3 Termie characters that given one turn of movement will unload ultimate devastation on your opponent only to see you beloved LR Crusader explode on turn one. Or losing the multi-combat by 2 and then watching all of your MCs fail their fearless saves and die.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
I think we all agree on the following points.
Luck is A factor.
List building and taking bad match ups into consideration is a skill.
Finding ways to minimize the impact of risk/luck is a skill.
If all else was truly equal luck would be the deciding factor.

I think we disagree on the following points.
All else is never truly equal.
If something else is unequal it is more likely to win/lose the game than luck.
The odds of someone having luck truly bad enough to cost them the game are extremely small.
Things like having a raider blown up, a key unit destroyed, getting a bad match up in a tournament, etc are more attributable to skill than luck.

You know, I think it's actually just the last point that there's serious disagreement about. I mean, I agree that player skill is extremely unlikely to ever be exactly equal. The theory does not require that to be true (in fact, there's this whole graph on page 1 for when they're not). Likewise, the more non-luck things are inequal, the more they matter compared to luck.

Really, it seems to be a matter of opinion with regard to where the "blue line" on the graph is. I think we can agree that if you had two hypothetically peftectly matched people, that the game would be determined by luck, and that if you had a perfect player play the worst player in 40k, then luck would be pretty unlikely to be the determining factor (unless, perhaps, the perfect player could roll literally nothing but 1's, perhaps).

The real question is one of when does luck become a more important factor than relative skill to the outcome of a game?

The idea that the blue line should be at the absolute bottom (on the X-axis) seems much too low to me. I have had several games where the two players had unequal skill and the game was determined by key die rolls. Plus, the idea that skill's comparison to luck is boolean, where it either totally matters or it totally doesn't, is strange to me.

Of course, I'd also argue that placing the blue line at the highest possible point on the Y-axis would be too much. As I have had games between unequal players determined primarily by luck, so have I also beaten worse players, even while rolling poorly. Clearly, there is a skill component to this game.

As such, the crossover between luck and skill is some nebulous place in the middle.

I suppose the real question is somewhat less of determining most accurately where this level is (because that sounds extremely difficult, at best), but what does it mean when the skill level goes below the luck level?

I think that means different things to different people, depending on what they're looking for from 40k as a game. For some people, knowing that if they lose a game it's probably because they were terribly unlucky might drive them insane and cause them to quit 40k to play a game where there isn't a random element in it. For others, perhaps once they get to a certain level they stop bothering with trying to get better, and focus on other things.

As been said a couple of times here...

matterofpride wrote:After you reach a certein "level" in 40k and everyone is at this same level...40k really does turn into more of a game of chance. This thought yeah can be a little disheartening depending on why it is you are into 40k in the first place.

If your in it cause you like the models..modeling..painting..haning out at the stoere.. plaing campaigns..ext..ext then this thought isnt nearly as big of a deal. Compared to someone who is in it more just to win and go for first prize. Cause really in that scenario its more of up to chance on how your dice roll and what your match up are.

Reecius wrote: I play in a LOT of tournaments, typically several a month. And what I have noticed is that in good games, against good opponents with good lists in balanced missions (reduction of variables) it simply comes down to who makes less mistakes and who gets a few lucky dice to fall their way. That's it.

Is it disheartening?

It depends on your point of view. It has made me a more relaxed player for the most part (although I still get VERY engaged in competitive games) as I have come to accept that a lot of it is simply out of my hands.

MikeMcSomething wrote:Dash, You're repeating the mantra "I'm awesome so luck doesn't exist" without actually addressing any of the key points made with regards to the fact that variance in unit performance does exist, and not just in the outliers you claim it does.

40k, despite what your ego is screaming at you, is not a deep game -

Doooooooooooooood. Relax. No need for the personal crap. If my ego was screaming at me, instead of trying to logically explain things to you, I would simply say something like, "MikeMcSomething, you think that luck matters in 40k because you're not good enough to see past that entry level understanding of 40k. You think the game isn't very deep because you can't comprehend its dimensions or depth. Your inability to fathom more than a beginner's understanding of the game, or accept the possibility that you don't KNOW everything about the game is why we can't have a conversation about this topic."

That would be arrogance - an offensive display of superiority or ego.

Instead, I'm trying to stay logical with you. Variance in unit performance *does* exist. Player skill negates the relevance of of that variance. You're right in that I *am* drawing from personal experience here. I'm not concerned with how deep the game is or not, but there is a group of people (a significant group) around the country and world who perform exceptionally well in 40k games. It is not because they are incredibly lucky, it is because they are incredibly skilled. When you pit these people against each other, luck does not determine the outcomes of their game, skill does - the ability to play tactically sound, to not make mistakes, and to create opportunities on the table and try forcing your opponent to make mistakes.

If you've never had an opponent pivot or move a predator in such a way that your eyes light up a little bit because you know that you're going to be able to move a unit just far enough the next turn to get in a side armour shot on it, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. If you've ever made that realization, moved to exploit it, failed to hit/penetrate/other, and subsequently feel like you just blew your chances at a win, or that your strategy is screwed now....you probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Player skill in 40k starts with building an effective list capable of taking on any other list provided that you are a competent general. From there it expands into threat prioritization, knowledge of your own capabilities and your enemies....and goes into analysis of deployment, probing questions of your opponent...into the miniscule detail of examining the facings of enemy vehicles, baiting deep-striking units, and so much more.

At the highest levels of gameplay....winning and losing is in the details - not hoping for good luck. That's entry level 40k tactics. And in that respect, I *do* have a big ego. I solidly believe that I am at the highest levels of gameplay. I travel all around the country to test that theory as often as I can. *THIS* thread, however, posits that the skill I work to master and test against others is irrelevant "up here" because luck is the deciding factor. I see some hypothetical discussion that runs contrary to reality.

That's like some kids saying "Nascar drivers drive cars powered by bubbles!" And the Nascar drivers say, "Uh...no we don't."

Yep. I said it. There is a level of 40k up there. See the link in my signature about "High Stakes 40k?" Do you think I would put mortgage payments on the line for a 40k game if LUCK was the deciding factor?

So far everyone here pretty much seems to be in agreement, except dashofpepper, who probably has a vested interest in being viewed as some sort of tactical genius, and scuddman, who appears to be creating arguments out of thin air.

This is funny. Just because everyone thinks one way doesn't mean that they are right. You see, I have the perspective of having played sports, video games, and 40k at a high level, so I'm able to draw parallels between different competitions that other people can't.

And this is my premise...if you think 40k or these kinds of things are totally based on luck, you are also saying the same of all competitive things, because there is a random element to everything we do competitively.

That just sounds like what losers say. "You were just lucky..."

Of course, I'm from an ultracompetitive tiger mom kind of background, so my viewpoint has its own bias.

Edit: and in the vein of competitveness, this also tells me MikemcSomething is an idiot...who doesn't have the ability to analyze my arguments, but can just say "out of thin air" without any analytical proof, but is too stupid to make his own argument or think for himself.

Dashofpepper wrote:Player skill negates the relevance of of that variance.

Firstly, player skill reduces, not negates. Secondly your opponent's player skill at exploiting variance negatively impacts your ability to reduce the variance.

Player skill can not literally turn a "vehicle explodes" result into any other result, no matter how experienced you are. Player skill can not change the actual results of the die roll (unless you've become so skilled you're actually a Jedi). Skill can reduce the impact of losing a vehicle (but remember, your opponent is trying to exacerbate the impact), but it can't bring that vehicle back.

Luck has real consequences in a game determined by die rolls.

Dashofpepper wrote:You're right in that I *am* drawing from personal experience here.

I don't think anyone here is doubting that you have had experiences. I think that we are doubting your interpretation of your experiences. So far, the only defense of why your interpretation is the correct one seems to be because you're the one who come up with it.

Dashofpepper wrote:See the link in my signature about "High Stakes 40k?" Do you think I would put mortgage payments on the line for a 40k game if LUCK was the deciding factor?

I don't think you'd put mortgage payments on the line unless you THOUGHT luck wasn't the deciding factor. Whether it IS the deciding factor or not has nothing to do with how you choose to risk your money.

Ailaros wrote:Big gambles that have big failures are called big mistakes. Big gambles that have big successes are called triumphs.

Firstly, player skill reduces, not negates. Secondly your opponent's player skill at exploiting variance negatively impacts your ability to reduce the variance.

Player skill can not literally turn a "vehicle explodes" result into any other result, no matter how experienced you are. Player skill can not change the actual results of the die roll (unless you've become so skilled you're actually a Jedi). Skill can reduce the impact of losing a vehicle (but remember, your opponent is trying to exacerbate the impact), but it can't bring that vehicle back.

Luck has real consequences in a game determined by die rolls.

This type of thinking assumes that one die roll as a major impact on the game. It doesn't..and here's why.

With probability, there is more variance the fewer the number of attempts done. Mathematically speaking, as you go towards infinity, you get closer and closer to the statistical norm...which is why probability was invented in the first place as an analysis tool.

The thing is, to even shoot a lascannon, you have to roll to hit, roll armor pen, roll cover saves, and then roll on the damage table. That's FOUR dice rolls for 1 effect in the game. How many dice do you roll in 40k? Over 6 turns, all your guns, you're gonna roll hundreds of times. For hth, you'll roll thousands of times.

Because 40k is designed this way using six sided dice, I can mathematically figure out my odds and have an extremely high amount of certainty about what will happen and factor that into my play. On top of that, 40k divides things into vehicles and infantry, hth or not. It is easily possible to isolate one type of thing and make it completely immune to another. (Such as can't shoot into hth).

Fantasy is more a game where a single dice roll could derail you (magic, leadership, etc.)
40k rolls too much dice and has way too many ways to mitigate.

This is distinctly different from a game that is completely random and has absolutely no certainty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The real question is one of when does luck become a more important factor than relative skill to the outcome of a game?

I agree with Ailaros that this really is the crux of the argument. However, I'd say 40k doesn't get completely broken down enough for us to make a good enough assessment of this question completely. My "intuition" tells me that army list matters most, followed by game play (endgame matters more than beginning, generally), followed lastly by luck.

But I can't easily measure those because we havent broken 40k down enough to make those quantifiable weights.

Sure is argument from authority in here. Time to unsubscribe.

Ailaros wrote:
Player skill can not literally turn a "vehicle explodes" result into any other result, no matter how experienced you are.

Correct. But player skill can reduce the impact of "Vehicle explodes" into a minimal role - such that its impact on the game is trivial. IE, "Good job, you exploded a vehicle. I was expecting that and prepared for it."

SKILL also dictates WHAT vehicle an enemy explodes.

There's a lot of resistance to completely breaking the game down, so at this point in time, I'd say luck doesn't matter as much. But that being said, I'll concede that there may be a point that the game breaks down and becomes completely about luck.

I just don't know where that point is, and I don't think we've even come close to maxing skill possibility yet.

Now, if we played 40k for money...this game would then evolve very quickly...lol...but it'll become not so fun very fast. I'm looking at you, Magic the Gathering.

I think a single die roll can definitely have an impact on the game. A major impact. Enough to determine who wins and loses (or draws, in the example I'm about to give).

A while back I was playing with Tau against a 3rd edition GK force with my friend. In the deployment phase (I went first), I carefully examined the terrain, my army, his army, and what I thought he would do. I placed my Broadside teams (3 teams - forget how many total) in areas where I had LOS to a solid part of his deployment zone. When he deployed, he carefully examined the situation and found that there was no place where his Land Raider would be safe from fire - he eventually found a spot with cover, but I still had the opportunity to shoot. My "Skill" gave me the opportunity to fire at the start of the game.

On the first turn, I immobilized his LR. Despite the 4+ cover save it got. Only one team of Broadsides fired at it. Statistically speaking, even with 3 in the team (and assuming all 3 hit - 75% chance of each hitting), I should have had maybe 1 or 2 pens, and maybe a glance instead of a pen on one of those, of which he saves against a hit, and I either get one glance or penetrating hit (not exact, but bear with me). So assuming I penetrate, I roll 1D6+1 on the damage chart - giving me a half chance to destroy it, and a 1/6 chance to only stun it (AP 1). I got something in the middle, that I was happy with, Immobilized. That single roll was "luck". I had another team that could have fire, but they changed targets because I was satisfied with the result. Had I got Weapon Destroyed or Stunned, I may have continued firing (I can't say for sure). But the single roll which may have blown it up or stunned it was "luck". My "skill" in the other team of Broadsides being where they were was a backup, but I could not have controlled what the first team's results would have been. Maybe all 3 hit. Maybe all 3 miss. Maybe I blow it up, maybe it stun it a lot. I dealt with what I got, a result I was happy with.

Fast forward to turn 5. Out of the 4 objectives on the table, I control 1, he controls 1, and we contest 1. At the end of the turn, he had 4 Grey Knights on the table, while I had well over 50% of my forces, including 3 scoring units. We rolled for the next turn (continue on a 3+), and it comes up 1. The game ends, a draw (we don't use tie-breakers). I sighed and was pissed off at myself. I had that game in hand, but my lack of "skill" caused the game to be a draw despite an overwhelming advantage on my part. I made several mistakes, and that caused me to only draw and not win the game. His "skill" allowed him to scrape together a draw despite losing over 1/6 of his points before even firing a shot. His Knights, at the end, were surrounded by Fire Warriors, a Devilfish, and a Crisis Suit with Burst Cannons. Had the game continued, I would have easily won.

But it didn't. The game ended. A better player than myself would have tabled him that game, and a worse player may have lost. "Luck" decided that the game ended when it did, on turn 5, even though the odds said it should continue. More "Skill" on my part would have negated that luck, my tabling him before the roll ever occurred. More "Skill" on his part may have handled the situation he was thrust in at the start better, and found a way to squeak out a win. In terms of our relative skill, I would give him an edge over myself, particularly in terms of tactics.

Skill was important that game. His skill and mine are the primary reasons that the game ended up a draw. More skill from either of us and it seems likely that someone wins. But Luck played a big part in it, particularly when the time came for a final die roll to see if the game continued. I have no doubt that if Dash or others more skilled than I played in my place, the game would have been over far before the roll came. But what if Dash had been playing someone about as skilled as he is?

What if, on turn 5 (going second), you look at the table. You have played your heart out, and even you acknowledge this is the finest game of Warhammer you have ever played. Both you and your opponent have played to the stretch of your abilities and beyond, impressing even those who used to think of you as inferior. It's a tournament, and you NEED to win this game.

Analyzing the table, there is no way to win. Objectives are tied, with one being contested in the middle by two large squads locked in close-combat. Only a cruel roll of the dice will cause anyone to win the CC this turn (both units have ATSKNF). Nothing is in position to help in the assault, you can't shoot into it, no barrage to "accidentally" scatter onto the assault. you can't even touch the objective he controls, it's completely out of LOS. You do what you can. You position units to shoot at the enemy on your next turn, turn 6. You ready them as best you can (nothing has the movement to contest), and continue the CC. You lose, as you hoped would happen, and fall back using "Combat Tactics". The enemy doesn't catch you, and you run far enough away to no longer contest. This is the best and only way you could win - lose the CC, hope the game continues, shoot the enemy to death and move onto the objective again. The roll comes down - a 1. You lose. But it was the best move. You played as well as you could, nary a bad move to your name, it was your only hope to beat the opponent. It was the best move. Everyone agrees with you, even your opponent, saying "I would have done the same thing". You congratulate each other, and he celebrates winning the tournament.

Now, I have no tournament experience, but this seems like a probable occurrence. If you HAVE to win, you had to give yourself the possibility of losing. And the dice just didn't have it in them. I don't think that makes someone "worse" for doing the best they could and a single roll needed to go one way for it to work. Sometimes things just don't work out.

It brings up another idea about "Individual Battles" that is well-known in sports. In a team based game (like we can consider Warhammer to be, from the models' perspective), each unit has it's task. For the plan to work, we need units to carry out their task. Sometimes you can do everything right, and it just doesn't work out, because a unit spends three turns firing it's melta at BS 4 and just can't hit the damn vehicle. This forces you to dedicate other resources to the destruction of that vehicle, if it's important enough. Let's say that vehicle ends up destroying something vital of yours - a squad sitting on an objective, and they run away. Since the first unit never won their individual battle, the objective you thought was safe is empty again - forcing you to dedicate more resources that were not planned for holding that objective to hold it yet again.

Redundancy, skill, and smart play help mitigate these effects. But it does not erase them. And the "bad luck" of the melta missing 3 straight times ends up being more problematic, and the effects continue to compound. First, it was a vehicle that simply wasn't destroyed. Second, a squad performing a vital task (objective holding) ran off. Thirdly, a unit that had it's own job to perform had to go and hold an objective, draining away resources from something else it could be doing (smashing the enemy, for example). The skill of the player helps to make these catastrophic situations into merely bad situations, or even just poor situations. But ultimately, it was bad luck, and it had affected his play, and it will cause a problem in his army - how well he deals with it is indicative of his skill - but if the melta fails on turns 5, 6, and 7, and his opponent, going second, makes his squad run away on turn 7 - that's bad luck, and if those were all the best moves, no about of skill can negate the fact that you no longer have an objective.

scuddman wrote:There's a lot of resistance to completely breaking the game down, so at this point in time, I'd say luck doesn't matter as much. But that being said, I'll concede that there may be a point that the game breaks down and becomes completely about luck.

I just don't know where that point is, and I don't think we've even come close to maxing skill possibility yet.

Now, if we played 40k for money...this game would then evolve very quickly...lol...but it'll become not so fun very fast. I'm looking at you, Magic the Gathering.

We *do* play 40k for money.

Not like in street fighter. You willing to put up 500 bucks on a money match? I'm not..not these days. I've seen money matches go for thousands of dollars. That's past my limit of hardcoreness.

scuddman wrote:Not like in street fighter. You willing to put up 500 bucks on a money match? I'm not..not these days. I've seen money matches go for thousands of dollars. That's past my limit of hardcoreness.

Well given that Dash has made references to a 'significant amount of moeny' being wagered on a match at Nova...

I'm with you, in that I'd never play 40k for serious money. But that's just me...I'm a hobbyist and collector first, and a gamer 2nd.

scuddman wrote:Not like in street fighter. You willing to put up 500 bucks on a money match? I'm not..not these days. I've seen money matches go for thousands of dollars. That's past my limit of hardcoreness.

I'm absolutely willing to put up $500 for a game of 40k. Or $1,000. Or $5,000. I've had $50-$150 bets randomly scattered throughout my career. The winner of the Nova Invitational in August gets $1,000 cash. I've got a side-challenge to a 2k game for money (linked in my bio). Probably more money than has ever been bet on a 40k game before?

The only thing keeping people from going pro with 40k is the naive belief that luck has anything to do with this game.

Oh, well, if he's doing money matches, then his skill level will be higher than most others.

Edit: I'm willing to money match you, but only in the street fighter game of my choice. Lol.

Am I allowed to challenege without offering up any money?

ChrisWWII wrote:

scuddman wrote:Not like in street fighter. You willing to put up 500 bucks on a money match? I'm not..not these days. I've seen money matches go for thousands of dollars. That's past my limit of hardcoreness.

Well given that Dash has made references to a 'significant amount of moeny' being wagered on a match at Nova...

I'm with you, in that I'd never play 40k for serious money. But that's just me...I'm a hobbyist and collector first, and a gamer 2nd.

I'm a gamer first, an unwilling hobbyist, and a chance collector.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

scuddman wrote:Oh, well, if he's doing money matches, then his skill level will be higher than most others.

Thus my NASCAR reference earlier. Its one thing to hypothesize about whether luck plays a factor when you're a skilled gamer, and another thing to actually BE there.

scuddman wrote:Oh, well, if he's doing money matches, then his skill level will be higher than most others.

Why?

Why does the amount of money you wager on a game have any impact on how much luck is the determiner of a game? Moreover, why does wagering more necessarily imply more skill?

Were this true, craps or roulette would be an absolute science, rather than a game of chance...

There's more money in street fighter...play that.
There's no bs hobbyist mentality either. Everyone's a shark. I think you'd be good at it.