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.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm trying not to return your hostility.

What hostility?

I'm here to learn and refine, not to cast slander.

Dashofpepper wrote:If you don't understand Calculus because you've only gotten to Algebra...

So, you're going to stick with that position, then. You're so awesome that I just can't possibly understand what you're saying?

Once again, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of this line of thought. I mean, it IS based on a logical fallacy after all.

MrEconomics wrote:I think the following statement needs to be corrected:

Nurglitch wrote:You're not going to get luckier by rolling a few hundred more dice, and you're not going to roll significantly closer to the expected value simply by rolling a fw more either.

However, by rolling more dice, you will benefit from more effects when you do get lucky.

This is some dangerous thinking. It is true that the best and worse case scenarios tend to deviate much more strongly from the norm when there are a lot of dice involved than a few. For example, a unit of 5 Terminators failing 1 out of 1 armor save isn't as bad as failing 5 out of 5. We must remember, however, that the more dice that are involved, the less likely the worst case scenario becomes. A Terminator needing to make 1 armor save and failing is a 1 in 6 event, and can't be considered very improbable. Failing 5 out of 5 is a 1 in 7776 event, that is, it will happen less than .1% of the time. If this has happened to you more than once or twice in your 40k career, your dice are probably biased. The simple fact is that deviations from the mean outcome are common when the number of dice (or random draws in a more general sense) is small, while having overall results close to the mean approaches probability 1 as the number of dice gets large.

You do have a good point, however, in that throwing a few extra dice will not quickly move the overall result to the average once an overall deviation is present. The Law of Large Numbers only holds in the limit, as does the central limit theorem. 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.

I'm not talking about probability there, I'm talking about potentiality. You won't get luckier rolling more dice, but if you do get lucky, you're going to do more, it's as simple as that.

For example, suppose you have the option (A) to roll 5+ to hit with six dice. On average you should expect two hits. Another option (B) is to roll 4+ to hit with four dice, and a third option (C) is 3+ to hit with three dice. Regardless of the choice, and supposing all else is equal, you're most likely to average 2 hits every time you face this choice. However, the most hits you'll be able to get out of option C is three, option B is four, and option A is six. The least number of hits you're able to get out of any option is 0.

Over the long haul this levels out, but there's simply not enough dice rolled during a game of Warhammer 40,000 to approximate even a wishful application of the law of large numbers. A good player is prepared to capitalize on good luck and minimize the damage done by bad luck, as well as prepared for the most probable chain of events. They pay attention to the limits, as well as the likelihoods.

Warhammer is interesting because it combines traits of combinatorial and classical games, and too many people get caught up in the statistics of whether particular events are likely to plan for the whole continuum of potential events, and thus play the game rather than just roll dice and hope.

I mean, there's a great comment up there about how a 'good' player has obscured their Land Raider but it's still destroyed when an Ork player gets lucky, and how that makes luck as important as skill... It's just bizarre to me that anyone would think of skill as somehow being exclusive from luck when the skill in 40k is managing resources, of which luck is just one variable. The others are board-space, turn-time, and army-material.

Something everyone should try in Warhammer 40,000 is a game of several squads of Imperial Guard Infantry against an identical Imperial Guard Infantry force. I think it gives one an appreciation for the basic mechanics of Warhammer, and the impact of sound tactics and strategy on luck.

Ailaros wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If you don't understand Calculus because you've only gotten to Algebra...

So, you're going to stick with that position, then. You're so awesome that I just can't possibly understand what you're saying?

Once again, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of this line of thought. I mean, it IS based on a logical fallacy after all.

Dash, try and turn things around. Look at it from our perspective. What you are basically saying is the rest of us - including the majority of the people that have commented on this thread - are not yet skilled enough at Warhammer to understand why the dice matter as little as they do (that is to say, virtually none in your experience). To quote something you said...

DashofPepper wrote:My point is this: Luck has nothing to do with me winning or losing, because my "luck" defies statistical probability, and I still win. I *win* because I've minimized the role of luck in my games. I'm not unique, I can rattle off names. I'm just the most vocal, and willing to point to my W/L record and draw correlations.

That's all very well Dash. The point is how? ArtfcllyFlvrd asked that of you, of which you had not posted a response. You post about how little luck matters, but fail to provide evidence to that example. You also mentioned this...

DashofPepper wrote:Rolling 26 dice (taking 26 shots) with dark lances over the course of a turn and getting two hits out of 26 (on a 3+), followed by a single glance of a razorback (3), followed by a shaken result (1). That's a bad game for anyone. But I consistently do it. Pretty much every game. Even on Vassal, where the dice are based on a RNG. I'm truly not overstating my rolling (or understating in this case), it is truly an abomination.

Anecdotal evidence, fine. How did you win that game? What did you do? How did you strategy change based on the bad luck? How can you consistently win when several hundred points of your army fails to do it's job turn after turn and game after game? I pity the soul that catches your dice on a good day, by the way.

Since you haven't really provided an answer other than mostly repeating what you said when you first entered the thread, other than providing a few other anecdotal bits here and there, we (the collective rest of us who only know Algebra) are forced to draw other conclusions - one possible conclusion is, yes, you are so far beyond the rest of us trying to understand you that you don't feel like taking the time to bother and/or feel like even if you did we couldn't grasp the concept (That is a completely serious sentence). I think most people will be hesitant to simply accept that. I suck at basketball, but still understand why Michael Jordan was as amazing as he was. The other two I already presented beforehand - either your rolls aren't really as bad as you and others think they are (considering the group also notices, I find this less likely), or, despite playing the best in the country you are still leaps and bounds ahead of them that bad rolls don't affect you enough to cost you the game. I find this one more likely.

I hope you can get where the rest of us are coming from now.

DashofPepper is no Michael Jordon
I mean, Jordon didn't become Jordan because he was lucky, he became Jordan because he persevered through the lows as well as excelling the highs. That said, I think that he's right to point out managing constants like material and space is far more important than managing variables like the likelihood of any particular event occurring.

Take the Hawk-Dove game, for example. In this game the players have the choice of either playing the Hawk strategy, in which case they take a dollar from their opponent, or the Dove strategy, in which case they give two dollars to their opponent. The Nash Equilibrium for this game is opposing Hawk strategies.

Now, if suppose you had to roll to determine whether the strategy goes off: 3+ for the Dove strategy, and 5+ for the Hawk strategy, would that simply make the game a matter of lucky? Nope, opposed Diced Hawk Strategies are now the Nash Equilibrium. That's because a player that plays Dove will always do worse than an opponent who plays Hawk, and only as well as an opponent who plays Dove. The 'risk' of doing better than a failed strategy is absent because the Dove strategy gives money away. Certainly the dice roll makes the game a little less of an obvious resolution, and essentially just dicing off, but it doesn't remove the strategy and strategic thought required to play the game successfully.

For example, I think there's something to be said for playing to prevent an opponent winning as well as trying to be the first one past the finish line. But once I'd made that strategic decision, all I have left is implementation. Fortunately the implementation involves more than just rolling dice...

I agree with the original post

TheRedArmy wrote:
That's all very well Dash. The point is how? ArtfcllyFlvrd asked that of you, of which you had not posted a response. You post about how little luck matters, but fail to provide evidence to that example. You also mentioned this...

And that answer to that is tactics - how I overcome a challenge in a particular game changes with the game. In the game where my alpha strike was 2/27 hits, I had positioned myself to give most of my vehicles mutual cover (at least the most important ones). I'd also taken flicker fields on all my vehicles, and while it helped me from losing *everything*, I spent the rest of the game surviving as best I could (terrain and flat out moves, going to ground where applicable) until the last turn (objective game) at which point I had given up trying to protect my vehicles and had taken out three of his five troop choices (but not much else) - leaving me with three objectives to his one, and him with firepower supremacy on the table - but unable to do much moving because I was using surviving vehicles to physically block his other troops from getting to an objective, and his vehicles from contesting mine. If it was an unlimited turn game, I would have lost, but at the end of turn 6, I had more objectives. I had lost several troop choices, but I brought six to the game. That wasn't a "lucky choice" that was a strategic decision.

There's no tactical guidelines that I can post "This is the answer to situation X...." Throughout the forums I give situational advice as best I can, but most of the help you can give outside of a game is with a list. That's a piece of it, but how you PILOT that list isn't really something that someone can teach you over the forums. I can watch a game and critique moves, target priorities, objective placement, vehicle facings....those are the elements that turn a good list into a winning one.

I've done my best to explain how to mitigate luck and make it as much of a non-factor in a game as possible. I can't walk you through every permutation of a game and what the "correct" response is. That's something you have or you don't have, and if you don't have, you hopefully learn.


Back to the MJ reference with basketball. If someone who doesn't play basketball makes a three pointer, it was a lucky shot. If someone who plays professional basketball makes a three pointer, it was skill.

Dice rolling good or bad don't make you win or lose games. Bad rolling is a cop-out for a bad player to explain why they lost a game. Yes, I'm saying trust me. It *is* all about skill. Any of the "elite" of 40k will tell you the same. And have. I've sent a couple PMs asking some friends to post in here with their thoughts, and for the most part I got things like, "Its a pointless thread - some people refuse to believe they're at fault for not being good players."

So yes - I'm asking for trust. All I can do is give general guidance, mentor someone in a vassal game or in person, and ask that you trust in my experience.

Dashofpepper wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:
That's all very well Dash. The point is how? ArtfcllyFlvrd asked that of you, of which you had not posted a response. You post about how little luck matters, but fail to provide evidence to that example. You also mentioned this...

And that answer to that is tactics - how I overcome a challenge in a particular game changes with the game. In the game where my alpha strike was 2/27 hits, I had positioned myself to give most of my vehicles mutual cover (at least the most important ones). I'd also taken flicker fields on all my vehicles, and while it helped me from losing *everything*, I spent the rest of the game surviving as best I could (terrain and flat out moves, going to ground where applicable) until the last turn (objective game) at which point I had given up trying to protect my vehicles and had taken out three of his five troop choices (but not much else) - leaving me with three objectives to his one, and him with firepower supremacy on the table - but unable to do much moving because I was using surviving vehicles to physically block his other troops from getting to an objective, and his vehicles from contesting mine. If it was an unlimited turn game, I would have lost, but at the end of turn 6, I had more objectives. I had lost several troop choices, but I brought six to the game. That wasn't a "lucky choice" that was a strategic decision.

So, if your opponent had covered more ground that game and not allowed to you flat out move to the objectives, then you probably would have lost? It seems to me that your opponent wasn't trying to grab objectives more so he was trying to kill you. Which can be a common problem in games, and I even find myself doing it. I find myself going after my opponent when I should be going after objectives at times. I try to catch myself and rethink scenarios. If I can capture an objective over fighting, is the fighting worth it? Is the objective worth it?

Then army lists. A lot of times you see people only take 2 core units, because that is the minimum, and if those two get under 50% strength then they cannot hold objectives. I saw this happen last night in a friendly game I was sort of just watching while my buddies played. Each only took 2 core units (1750 points) and one side had all their core units reduced to under 50%. He could no longer hold objectives just contest them.

I just built an ork army (I am an old school gamer just getting back into it and had tons of orks from boxed sets that I never used from back in the day) by dusting off some old orks I had and buying a few new models. My tactics will be move fast, always shoot, always assault always move towards the enemy with lots of boyz as fast as possible. I cannot wait to try them out.

Sorry, I'm posting as an aside to the main point of the thread (but I have to say, after going back-and-forth several times, I'm with Dash on this one. His argument is persuasive, and it makes sense. I also don't think he's being hostile when talking about Calculus v. Algebra; I think the OP is being a little too sensitive. I, for one, am not even at Algebra yet).

Crom wrote:
Then army lists. A lot of times you see people only take 2 core units, because that is the minimum, and if those two get under 50% strength then they cannot hold objectives. I saw this happen last night in a friendly game I was sort of just watching while my buddies played. Each only took 2 core units (1750 points) and one side had all their core units reduced to under 50%. He could no longer hold objectives just contest them.

Where's this rule, Crom? I'm new to the game so I re-looked-up "scoring units" on page 90 of the BRB but I find nothing about scoring units not counting as such under 50% capacity.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Dice rolling good or bad don't make you win or lose games.

I think this could be quantified in a series of experiments:

Take an opponent (preferably with similar skills to yours) and start granting him X rerolls per game. He gets X opportunities to reroll either his or your dice rolls.
Start with say, 50 rerolls. If you still win, increase the amount, if you lose decrease. Stop when you can only beat him 50% of the time.

How high do you think you could go?

Dashofpepper wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:
That's all very well Dash. The point is how? ArtfcllyFlvrd asked that of you, of which you had not posted a response. You post about how little luck matters, but fail to provide evidence to that example. You also mentioned this...

And that answer to that is tactics - how I overcome a challenge in a particular game changes with the game. In the game where my alpha strike was 2/27 hits, I had positioned myself to give most of my vehicles mutual cover (at least the most important ones). I'd also taken flicker fields on all my vehicles, and while it helped me from losing *everything*, I spent the rest of the game surviving as best I could (terrain and flat out moves, going to ground where applicable) until the last turn (objective game) at which point I had given up trying to protect my vehicles and had taken out three of his five troop choices (but not much else) - leaving me with three objectives to his one, and him with firepower supremacy on the table - but unable to do much moving because I was using surviving vehicles to physically block his other troops from getting to an objective, and his vehicles from contesting mine. If it was an unlimited turn game, I would have lost, but at the end of turn 6, I had more objectives. I had lost several troop choices, but I brought six to the game. That wasn't a "lucky choice" that was a strategic decision.

There's no tactical guidelines that I can post "This is the answer to situation X...." Throughout the forums I give situational advice as best I can, but most of the help you can give outside of a game is with a list. That's a piece of it, but how you PILOT that list isn't really something that someone can teach you over the forums. I can watch a game and critique moves, target priorities, objective placement, vehicle facings....those are the elements that turn a good list into a winning one.

I've done my best to explain how to mitigate luck and make it as much of a non-factor in a game as possible. I can't walk you through every permutation of a game and what the "correct" response is. That's something you have or you don't have, and if you don't have, you hopefully learn.


Back to the MJ reference with basketball. If someone who doesn't play basketball makes a three pointer, it was a lucky shot. If someone who plays professional basketball makes a three pointer, it was skill.

Dice rolling good or bad don't make you win or lose games. Bad rolling is a cop-out for a bad player to explain why they lost a game. Yes, I'm saying trust me. It *is* all about skill. Any of the "elite" of 40k will tell you the same. And have. I've sent a couple PMs asking some friends to post in here with their thoughts, and for the most part I got things like, "Its a pointless thread - some people refuse to believe they're at fault for not being good players."

So yes - I'm asking for trust. All I can do is give general guidance, mentor someone in a vassal game or in person, and ask that you trust in my experience.

Your reducing the effect that luck has in your games, but it is a factor in the game
I'm not sure why you were saying up to this point that it doesn't have any effect

If a game involves dice, chance and luck is involved
You can certainly reduce the effect the dice roll has on your game, as you clearly do, but to deny its existence in the game is strange to say the least.

Something that everyone in this thread (or at least all the posts I've read - I admit I have skimmed a few so apolgies if anyone has made this point) seems to have missed is this:

There is a huge difference between luck playing a part in a game and luck playing a part in the game. Luck plays a significant factor in an individual event in 40k (does this shot hit its target, does that unit fail its leadership, etc).
Over the course of a game where many dice rolls are made this 'luck' will take on more of a form associated with a normal distribution, but you may still have games where you are very 'unlucky' (or your opponent is very 'lucky', or both). The more games you play, the more the dice results will approach a normal distribution - hence why understanding mathhammer is important!

This means that over an increasingly large number of games, as 'luck' evens out, then only player skill is relevant as a determining factor. Similarly, over the course of a game player skill is far more relevant than it is for an individual event.
In this sense 40k (and any game involving chance) has parallels to quantum mechanics, whereby individual actions at the sub-atomic level are random, but the cumulative effects are almost entirely predictable. In a similar fashion, a marine squad will, over time, always hit with 2/3rds of their shots and it is this predictability that can be utilised by players to build their lists and make educated guesses as to the efficacy of units and how their weaknesses can be minimised.

Ultimately, skill will always win outside of localised low probability circumstances - and even these can be mitigated by the simple expedient of never putting all your eggs in one basket.

Asuron wrote:
You can certainly reduce the effect the dice roll has on your game, as you clearly do, but to deny its existence in the game is strange to say the least.

I don't deny the existence of luck, merely state that at the higher levels of capability and gameplay, its presence is irrelevant to the flow and outcome of the game, which are instead decided by meticulous care of your army and ultimately mistakes.
**************************
**************************
Remember: This thread isn't about the existence of luck. The OP has posited that at the higher levels of gameplay, luck is the deciding factor in winning or losing - and as such, he's disenchanted with 40k and where his future can take him.

My presence here has been to counter that luck is NOT the deciding factor at higher levels of gameplay, and that it has no bearing on his future of 40k, only his present - where luck only has a role in his gaming experience because he doesn't know how to remove its influence yet.

Hearken ye, I bring tidings of fortune and favor to the superstitious unwashes masses!
**************************
**************************

@myenyec, I already addressed your idea with Redbeard. The idea of "luck" in 40k is a randomly occuring chance of dice performing statistically better than normal. The random occurance isn't the luck factor, the dice performing better than normal is. Where the former variable would be "how often do I get lucky" the latter would be "What magnitude of luck do I have?"

You're proposing that we not only increase the magnitude of someone's theoretical "luck" - which is what is proposed to affect games....which is fine for a control group - but you're ALSO proposing to increase the former variable - frequency of occurance - to a fixed number. IE, you're fixing the randomness of occurance of a random variable, which is itself fixed. Creating two control groups doesn't test one of them, it changes the control groups completely - so that you're no longer testing the potential influence of luck - the occurance of which in itself is not a fixed variable.

But wait, there's more! Why would I need go *give* someone rerolls? Both of us can already take them in our lists. Rerolls to hit, rerolls to wound, rerolled saves, twin-linked weaponry....it exists all over 40k. And if you take it all throughout your army, you're reducing luck as a factor in your game already.

Dashofpepper wrote:But wait, there's more! Why would I need go *give* someone rerolls? Both of us can already take them in our lists. Rerolls to hit, rerolls to wound, rerolled saves, twin-linked weaponry....it exists all over 40k. And if you take it all throughout your army, you're reducing luck as a factor in your game already.

But all of those things have a commensurate opportunity cost, represented in how many points you spend to gain that ability, either through support units or built into the unit's point cost.

Hydras get 4 shots that re-roll hit, for a mean of 3 hits. Autocannon HWTs get 6 shots without rerolls, for a mean of 3 hits. Both are 75 points. Rerolls are 'better', thus you get fewer shots. The HWT may perform better with support (BiD order), but that will result in a higher point investment than a single Hydra.

To reconcile your statement, I have to go off of the assumption that 40k is imbalanced (wherein Hydra is smiply better than HWT, or the equivalent in some other list), and that your opponents are taking the inferior choice such that even your 'poor' luck is mitigated by an inherently stronger unit.

Sourclams, the *more* important part of my message was surrounded by stars.

That was the point of this thread, and I'm not eager to continue to get into case-specific hypotheticals that are at best barely topical to the OP - which is what was in stars in my message. I will tell you this though: Your entire premise for your post is faulty, and you're missing the forest for the tree. I've said nothing about twin-linked anything being better than non-twin-linked weaponry; only that taking twin-linked over non-twin linked units reduces the chance of variation in your results.

While I invite you to privately infer what you will from that, drawing unrelated conclusions that divert the intent (meaningfully or not) is why so many people in this thread are screaming that I'm not answering their "questions."

Dashofpepper wrote:Ailaros, I think you have it exactly backwards.

Exactly.

You wrote, "The higher player skill level becomes, the less the difference between the players matters, and the more that the results are determined by luck." You also wrote, "...40k is actually a tactically limited game, and once you achieve a certain level of skill, your skill becomes relatively insignificant compared to luck."

You have it exactly backwards. In truth, as a player's skill level becomes greater and greater, luck factors into their game less and less - because part of skill is learning how to mitigate luck as a factor in your strategy since it is an uncontrolled variable.

While the following cannot prove my claim, it is based on personal experience, and combined with the above explanation, should be sufficient to disprove your claim.

The following thread about dice: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/346793.page

In short, I have a legendary reputation for my dice rolls. Everyone knows someone who can roll a 5+ like no other. I'm the guy who balances that guy's luck. Rolling 26 dice (taking 26 shots) with dark lances over the course of a turn and getting two hits out of 26 (on a 3+), followed by a single glance of a razorback (3), followed by a shaken result (1). That's a bad game for anyone. But I consistently do it. Pretty much every game. Even on Vassal, where the dice are based on a RNG. I'm truly not overstating my rolling (or understating in this case), it is truly an abomination.

And yet I win. Almost every game. I've been playing almost exclusively Dark Eldar for two years now.....56 wins and 2 losses on the tournament circuit (the kind you can verify if you cared); and something obscene outside of the tournament scene - so obscene that I took it out of my signature because I was tired of people calling me a liar simply on the principle that "no one is that good, luck is too much of a factor." At the time it was something to the effect of 297 wins and 1 loss....and that was probably a year or so ago. And most of those wins were with the old codex. I had a lot fewer lances then. At 2,000 points, I generally had...8 dark lances, sometimes nine. Then again, I had haywire grenades and the possibility of a 12" charge. =p

My point is this: Luck has nothing to do with me winning or losing, because my "luck" defies statistical probability, and I still win. I *win* because I've minimized the role of luck in my games. I'm not unique, I can rattle off names. I'm just the most vocal, and willing to point to my W/L record and draw correlations.

Exactly also as 2 higher skill players meet a smaller miste can have far greater consquences on your game as he will exploit it fully.

Because, you know, "skill" is a single dimension that's either higher, lower, or a wash...

Dashofpepper wrote:
I don't deny the existence of luck, merely state that at the higher levels of capability and gameplay, its presence is irrelevant to the flow and outcome of the game, which are instead decided by meticulous care of your army and ultimately mistakes.
...
My presence here has been to counter that luck is NOT the deciding factor at higher levels of gameplay, and that it has no bearing on his future of 40k, only his present - where luck only has a role in his gaming experience because he doesn't know how to remove its influence yet.

Yes, you keep saying that, in spite of the logical proof that you're wrong. The only way to completely remove luck from the game is not to roll any dice. And, while you're right, that good players do their best to remove the impact of luck, because you're still rolling dice, this luck cannot be wholly removed. When both players make an equally small number of mistakes, the only determinant left is luck.

Reduce the game to it's simplest possible layout. Two armies of nothing but guardsmen with lasguns are on 'islands' a fixed distance between 12"-24" from each other. The islands are surrounded by water, which is impassable, but does not provide a cover save.

In this thought experiment, there are no real choices to make, other that do you want to shoot, or not shoot. There is no movement, and no assault to complicate the situation. A skilled player knows that his chance to win improves if he shoots when it is his turn. In this case, a mistake would be to pass on a shooting phase.

Who wins? It's completely up to the dice. The roll to get that first shooting phase is probably the most important roll of the game. And following that, if either player has either a particularly good, or particularly bad, set of rolls, that's going to decide the winner.


Your argument, so far, has been that 'this cannot happen', and that 'two players will never be of such matched skill'. Well, maybe for you, that is true. That in spite of your atrocious luck, you're still god's gift to the game. But, for you to keep denying the theory - the provable theory - that as the player's skill level gets nearer, luck has a greater impact on the game, is just you being stubborn. Your experience is irrelevant because you're so much better than anyone else at the game that you've never played a game with someone at the same level as yourself, so you've never had to experience it.

Redbeard wrote:
Yes, you keep saying that, in spite of the logical proof that you're wrong.

I chuckled a bit there. The "logical proof" being some forum posters who are hypothesizing about what life might be like as a super-competitive / super-proficent / whatever you like gamer?

I bet that when Magellan came back to Europe to report that the Earth was round, the scientists didn't believe him at first. All *their* data said that it was flat. And...they'd never been around the world either.

You can't PROVE that luck is the deciding factor at the top levels of gameplay. You can only CONJECTURE and HYPOTHESIZE. And *all* data, not just from me - but from anyone at that level of gameplay (And I've asked around, reference earlier post).....is as much proof that its an incorrect hypothesis as can be given.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
Your experience is irrelevant because you're so much better than anyone else at the game that you've never played a game with someone at the same level as yourself, so you've never had to experience it.

And that's why I've gone to my peers for opinions. In this case there are only two possibilities: Conjecture, or Experience. I see people without relevant experience conjecturing, and people with relevant experience....agreeing with me. I'm not talking about everyone in this thread who is agreeing with me, because I've only seen two people show up who I'd classify in that category.

And before anyone gets offended, playing 40k for more years than other people doesn't make you good. Although it can help many people.

And again - see the note in stars! Stop ignoring it. I'm not trying to disprove that luck exists. Merely stating that contrary to the point of this thread - it is *not* the deciding factor in who wins the game.

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:
Where's this rule, Crom? I'm new to the game so I re-looked-up "scoring units" on page 90 of the BRB but I find nothing about scoring units not counting as such under 50% capacity.

It says that an Army's scoring units only come from it's troops allowance. If you think about it, are you going to order your elites to hold an objective point while the rest of your army fights? No, you are going to order some grunts to go take position behind that hill and hold it until I say so. One huge advantage to Eldar is that their scouts are troops and not elites. They can infiltrate and they get super awesome cover saves. So, if you place an objective in cover and then use your Pathfinders to hold it via infiltrate they can really hang on to it the whole game. Where as most other armies infiltrating units are either Elite or Fast Attack.

Also another point to look at luck and strategy is how many attack dice can you toss at your opponent. Since there are no such thing as save modifiers anymore, and it is replaced with AP instead, I am starting to look at numbers. Say, I know I am going to fight against marines. Space Marines have awesome armor. AP 3 weapons are sort of hard to come by in some armies so instead I just go with as many assault weapons as possible. The more times you make your opponent roll dice the more likely he is to fail once in a while. Then again you can have bad luck and get no hits or your opponent can save.

One of my first games (since we just got back into it) against Eldar I had this Grey Hunter unit that just took a beating, but my dice rolls were so good that it took him the whole game to get them below 50%. This then forced his hand at really trying to kill them because they were going to take an objective (custom mission my friend made up, you had to control and hold the only spot you could cross on a river). So, while the rest of my units were doing other things, out flanking, suppressing fire on incoming enemies, and assaulting his flanks with my fast attack, he had to spend more time and resources than he should have to take down my unit that was holding the objective. My other units were not so close due to me making a decision to use them to wipe the flanks first and foremost. By the end of the game I had control of the river with 2 scoring units and 1 unit below 50%, because my opponent had to waste so much firepower on one unit that just would not die. So, that is another side to luck and how it changes games on the fly. Had he wiped my marines that turn with that massive firepower he dropped into them, he could have then concentrated on something else the rest of the game. My lucky saving throws threw off his whole strategy and I mean they were lucky. I once saved every shot from Dire Avengers that did that unload an extra attack die skill. He fired like 40+ rounds at me and wounded nearly 30 and I saved like all but 1 dude.

I also want to note after playing many other war gaming systems (for many years), 40K definitely is lacking in some areas of balance. I think the system is solid, but not the most polished I have played. They just market their game properly and to the most people and have some of the best miniatures out there. They also have some of the better fluff stories as well in the science fiction realm. I mean, the whole Horus Hersey and the Emperor is a great story line. There is a lot of luck in certain situations. Who goes first, what mission you play versus your army list, what your opponent brings to battle, and so forth. Then certain armies get access to certain abilities that other armies do not. Things like reroll saves, wounds and so forth. So armies have limited twiin-linked options where as others get a lot more. Some armies have access to tons of open topped vehicles, which allow them to dump off troops in your face immediately and shoot all your weapons while doing so.

40K sort of takes the paper rocks scissors approach, where a unit is either good at shooting or assaulting but generally not great at both. Some units are great at taking out armor, but not so much troops. There are of course exceptions. Orks, their BS sucks compared to other races, but their assaulting skills aren't that bad at all. Marines, are good at everything, and have good armor. Now, points cost of each model is suppose to off set differences and in some cases I am not quite convinced it does. Some armies are really really hard to build a good and balanced 1500 point army, they may be better balanced at 1750 instead. Where other armies can build a perfect balance at 1500. I think GW could do a much better job at balancing the game, but perhaps it would cost them some of the simplicity the new rules have. I remember how complicated Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition could get at times, so I suppose there is actually a trade off.

Redbeard:

What's the mission parameters on that game? I take it 50pts a side, Annihilation, terrain as stated?

I mean, you've basically hand-waved away anything in that scenario that might not boil down to rolling dice. Of course it's up to the dice when rolling dice is the only thing left for the players to do. That's not even a proper game, since "not shooting" isn't a live option for either player. There's no real choices, or even much in the way of interaction. Without the opportunity to make a decision, no skill can come into it.

Here's a better game: two Imperial Guard Infantry squads need to make it across a 4' table, and off table edge E (for 'exit'). They start deployed at least 19" and at most 24" apart and 6" onto the board from edge S (for 'start'). Terrain-wise the board is a featureless plain.

Certainly luck will play a part, but the players know the odds, and the limits, and the better player will have the skill to handle whatever luck comes their way.

I don't know what educational background you come form, but you CAN prove things.

I showed the math that proves the original concept pages ago - something you seem to have ignored.

In short, you can prove that luck has some non-zero impact on every game, very easily. Doesn't even have to be a significant impact, but the mere fact that you roll for first turn is some impact.

All games are determined by something. We know that luck is a non-zero component of this equation, and whatever isn't luck, we can call skill: Outcome = Luck + Skill.

But skill is not a single component, it's actually a composite - the delta of the skill of each participant. Outcome = Luck + (SkillA - SkillB).


You want to stick some sort of constant in there - fine. You want to say that skill is 100 times more important than luck - that's fine too: (Outcome = Luck + 100*(skillA-SkillB)).

Does not change the fact that if skillA == skillB, your equation is suddenly Outcome = Luck + 100*(X-X) :: (X-X) == 0 --> Outcome = Luck.


All your antics and rants about how skill levels will never actually be the same, or two people will never actually make the same number of mistakes does not change this basic, fundamental concept. IF skill levels are equal, the only thing to determine the game has to be luck. Skill cancels itself out.


And, what's more, your anecdotal evidence even backs this up. Your game at Nova, where you lost because of what quarter Mephiston was randomly determined to be in is a great example of why the above is true. You clearly made horrible mistakes that allowed the game to be decided by that one roll for Mephiston's quarter. And that's fine, and I'm not arguing that you made mistakes that cost you the game.

But the flip side to that coin is that your opponent was in the same situation. He also made horrible game altering mistakes that let the game come down to a die roll. If he'd played better, at the very least, Mephiston would have been where he actually needed to be, instead of relying on that die roll.

So, you played a game with a guy whose skill level matched yours, and who made the same types of mistakes that you did, and what happened? The game came down to a single die roll - the epitome of luck. Your skill and his skill canceled each other out over the course of six turns. And, predictably, luck decided the game.

There is no rule saying that a unit has to be over 50% in order to score. A Troops choice remains scoring to the last man. It doesn't matter if it's 16 Boyz out of a Boy squad or a single Nob with a power klaw; if they're on the objective, they score. That last Nob could even be at half wounds and pinned; he still scores.

Nurglitch wrote:
I mean, you've basically hand-waved away anything in that scenario that might not boil down to rolling dice. Of course it's up to the dice when rolling dice is the only left for the players to do. That's not even a proper game, since "not shooting" isn't a live option for either player. There's no real choices, or even much in the way of interaction.

That's the point. It's a thought experiment, not a game. It creates a situation where player skill cannot be a factor, other than making a mistake and not shooting, to illustrate the concept that when skill is equal, luck decides outcomes.

Speaking of basic fundamental concepts, Redbeard, you acknowledge that "skill" isn't a single thing, but I think you're radically mismanaging that notion as something somehow independent of luck. I think a notion of 'luck' is well established. It's time to explain what you mean by 'skill'.

Nurglitch wrote:
Here's a better game: two Imperial Guard Infantry squads need to make it across a 4' table, and off table edge E (for 'exit'). They start deployed at least 19" and at most 24" apart and 6" onto the board from edge S (for 'start'). Terrain-wise the board is a featureless plain.

Certainly luck will play a part, but the players know the odds, and the limits, and the better player will have the skill to handle whatever luck comes their way.

Functionally, I see no difference between this and Redbeard's scenario.

Whichever player shoots first will have a significant advantage as the setup makes it impossible for the second player to increase their offensive output via Rapid Fire.

The first player will always stand and shoot 1 shot at 24".

The second player will then always stand and shoot 1 shot at 24" as well; it is impossible to move in a way such that the second player can close to Rapid Fire range before the first player could do so.

This then maximizes the effect of luck on the game, not minimizes it. Whichever player can roll better for the first couple turns should win, with the advantage to the first player for having gotten the first shots of.

sourclams:

Functionally they're very different because in Redbeard's game winning involves simply shooting the other unit, whereas in my game winning involves getting to the other side of the board - players need to determine the ideal trade-off between preventing the other unit from getting to the other side of the board, and getting there themselves.

I'm not positing this scenario so that Redbeard's game has a complement that controls for luck. I am, however, putting that luck in the context of playings managing it. Yes, luck plays a role, but the players decide which rolls to make, and know what the outcomes may be.

So while I haven't checked the math to say your solution is wrong, offhand it seems to ignore the possibility of the unit with the first turn moving and then running.

Dashofpepper wrote:
I bet that when Magellan came back to Europe to report that the Earth was round, the scientists didn't believe him at first. All *their* data said that it was flat. And...they'd never been around the world either.

Not to be a history of science nerd, but a spherical earth was accepted among nearly all scholars well before Columbus, and was one of the stronger theories as far back as ancient greece. Columbus didn't argue that the earth was round, he argued that the earth was smaller than everybody thought. It was simply by coincidence that the New World was roughly where he expected Asia to be.

Redbeard wrote:I don't know what educational background you come form, but you CAN prove things.

I showed the math that proves the original concept pages ago - something you seem to have ignored.

In short, you can prove that luck has some non-zero impact on every game, very easily. Doesn't even have to be a significant impact, but the mere fact that you roll for first turn is some impact.

DUDE! USING CAPS NOW FOR YOUR BENEFIT!!!! Hopefully I have your attention now?

I'm not going to repeat myself again, whether you continue to not get it or not. Last attempt. This thread is *NOT* about whether luck exists, or has a non-zero impact. NO ONE, INCLUDING MYSELF is saying that.

This thread is about whether luck is the *MOST SIGNIFICANT* factor in determining the winner of a game at the highest levels of gameplay. I don't care whether you think luck exists or not. It does. Granted. But it is *not* the most important factor, and at the highest levels of gameplay, it is almost irrelevant.

Stop reading and interpreting the way you want. You don't need to prove that luck exists - you need to prove that luck is more important than any other factor - which is the POINT of this thread - the OP is saying that tactics don't matter at the top, it boils down to luck. My experience says otherwise.

How is that getting twisted into "Dash says luck doesn't exist! Dash is ignoring my proof that random occurances exist!"

What's WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!??!?!?


*edit*

And since the meat of what I've been posting for pages *has* been ignored, and continues to so...so that people can play games arguing irrelevant points (which is what most of this thread has been) that have little to do in supporting the OP itself, I'm going to bow out. Again. But this time, for keepsies! I've said my piece, I'm comfortable with what I've written and how its been accepted by those with opinions I value, and that my primary purpose has been accomplished: That no random noobie is going to wander into room full of superstitious people and be influenced by their beliefs without a counter opinion being presented to them.

Nothing wrong with being a history of science nerd...

Speaking of which, it might be useful to point out that 'proof' insofar as it proves anything, relies on a series of assumptions, including that of a particular logic, that one must agree to before some conclusion can be admitted as proven. Likewise you're never going to prove anything by empirical science, working as it does from evidence satisfying hypotheses rather than conclusions logically derived from premises.

I know I am new here and I just got back into war gaming so my opinion and reputation may not be that well known or cared for at this point, but I do have to agree with DashofPepper on some points. I think he is trying to make it a bigger deal than it is, but he does make a valid point. Back in the day when Necromunda was new there were so many tournaments our local gaming shop had. We even had round robin tournaments with other gaming stores around the area. We would travel to other stores and challenge them, sort of like the local store you went to the most was your sponsor (unofficial of course) and we played Necromunda and then Warzone when it came out afterward.

I won every Necromnunda tournament. I think I only lost 1 game. I must had played 75+ games in several campaign style tournaments. However, a few tournaments did sportsmanship points. So, your opponent got to grade you on a scale of 1 to 5 on how sportsmanlike you were. Being that I wanted to win, with no exceptions (there were prizes, and one times a limited edition model from GW) I was very competitive. I planned my gang from the ground up to not lose a single game. I came up with simple strategies and then designed my gang around them to execute said strategy and do it well. I never tried to do anything crazy or extravagant, that just left too much margin of error in my opinion. The one time I got second place was due to my sportsmanship points. I was actually undefeated, and I entered the 3 day tournament on day 2, so I was 1 day behind everyone with my gang. Being competitive I am sure I rubbed some people the wrong way. I always try to be polite but if I see a way to crush you and exploit it, I do so with no mercy. Sometimes this can really tick people off, especially if they think you are using over powered cheese. So, even though I won every single game I played, I still got second place due to the sportsmanship points in that one tournament. However, I still won my limited edition bounty hunter model so I did not care all that much.

My 4th edition Lizardmen (albeit at the time a very broken army) was pretty much undefeated and uncontested in every campaign/tournament we played. My friends got me to play fantasy finally when 4th edition came out, and since Lizardmen were in the boxed set I just played them and bought some boxed set sprues off of people to build a quick and cheap army. Little did I know that GW was going to over cheese the army. I chalk up a lot of those wins to them being broken. 4th lvl Slaan Mage priests back then were so ungodly powerful.

Not a single time did any of my dice rolls matter. I just had the better strategy most of the time. I kept it simple, flexible, and above all tried to keep all margin of error to a minimum since dice rolls are random. Now I know this is a lot of talk, and you can not believe me, it is fine. I haven't proven myself to anyone here so that is what I would expect. If you really want to win every game you have to have a level of competitiveness in you to do so. In a friendly game you probably won't have that level of competition, unless you and your friends who game actually play that way. In a friendly game where you are more relaxed and maybe not as aggressive to win, I can see dice rolls being a larger factor. Attitude towards winning has an effect on winning or losing.