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.

Nurglitch wrote: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.

It amounts to the same thing. The first player can opt to either draw (nobody gets to the other side) or lose (by moving in such a way that P1 cannot fire, and P2 should have an insurmountable firepower advantage).

I do acknowledge that there is a third possibility, wherein neither player shoots and simply runs for the other side of the table, but then this is a pure luck-dependent outcome as whoever can consistently roll higher on 1d6 will win, with the advantage to the first player.

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.

To do so would be suicidal (as in, would give away all of the advantage in this scenario, which is only gained by going first). If P1 runs, then by definition they are not shooting. If P1's movement results in being within twelve inches, then P2 simply charges, which should be an insurmountable advantage (1 pistol shot and 21 attacks versus 11 attacks) in combat. If P1's movement results in being more than 12", P2 simply shoots 1 shot, which should kill 2-3 men. P1's remaining men then rapid fire (or continue to run, which is suicidal) to kill 1-3 of P2's men, and P2 charges, which again should be an insurmountable advantage in close combat.

Where all of the inputs are so horribly predictable, luck's impact is maximized as P2 simply chooses to take his licks T1 and hope that he gets as lucky as possible.

Nurglitch wrote:DashofPepper is no Michael Jordon

Right. Whether Michael Jordan successfully makes a 3-pointer is not determined by the roll of a D6.

Dashofpepper wrote:the OP is saying that tactics don't matter at the top, it boils down to luck.

Actually, not I'm not. I'm saying that tactics are determinant in relation to the difference in skill, and that after a certain level of indeterminance, it tactics become less determinant than luck. At no point have I said that 40k is only a game of craps.

Dashofpepper wrote:In the game where my alpha strike was 2/27 hits... leaving me with three objectives to his one... because I was using surviving vehicles to physically block his other troops from getting to an objective

A good data point. I'd note, though, that if you got half your army blown off the table turn 1, and your opponent wasn't able to move onto the objective, that sounds like you were playing someone much worse than you, or you were extremely lucky after turn 1. That you won would be predicted by my model.

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

Dashofpepper wrote: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.

But you and several other people seem to be forgetting that 40k is a game between two players when you make statements like this. Yes, the better you get, the more you mitigate luck. At the same time, the better your opponent gets, the better they can exploit your luck.

You can't just look at your own skill in a vacuum. That's actually what this theory is about.

Dashofpepper wrote: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.

Certainly. The problem is that the only reason that you're giving for why we should trust your interpretation of things is based on an "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy. I don't tend to get convinced by fallacies.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:There is a huge difference between luck playing a part in a game and luck playing a part in the game. The more games you play, the more the dice results will approach a normal distribution - hence why understanding mathhammer is important!

That's actually a good point. This theory is really only designed to look in-game. I'd agree that over an infinite number of games that the person with the greater skill would have a higher record than his opponent. This difference would be the relative difference in skill factored by how far luck was from average (small after an infinite number of games, but still).

The end result would be that if you had two players of nearly equal skill level, the end result of 100 games would be something like 49-51 to 51-49, or 1-49-0 to 0-49-1, or something.

The problem is that Dash was making the claim that if it's him against someone of roughly equal skill level, the end result is 90-10 to 10-90. This, of course, breaks the theory, but there has yet been any real discussion about why the theory itself is wrong. I, and several others, are currently much more inclined to believe that Dash's interpretation of his games is incorrect. We've yet to hear any real reasoning otherwise, at least, reasoning that's not based on fallacy.

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.

Well, we could certainly debate the structure of scientific revolutions if you like, but I don't really see how that would be helpful.

To be fair, the reason that scientists who were originally doubted eventually become accepted is because they follow the scientific method. At no point are scientists ever believed on the grounds of "trust me, guys". It's why we don't believe in cold fusion, no matter how much experience those guys who published about it claim.

Dashofpepper wrote:You can't PROVE that luck is the deciding factor at the top levels of gameplay. You can only CONJECTURE and HYPOTHESIZE.

Sure, we can throw out positivism for this debate if you want. Of course, it's a double-edged sword. If you want to say that I can't prove luck is a determining factor because nothing can be proved, then likewise you can't prove that luck is NOT a determining factor, because you can't prove anything either.

Where does that leave us, then?

Dashofpepper wrote:

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.

So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

Deadshane1 wrote:
So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

If you actually read what he writes, he is not saying luck doesn't exist. He saying it is not an end all be all factor to who wins or loses a game. In his example where he had bad luck and got shot sup pretty good he still won by seizing enough objectives to win, where is opponent did nothing but try to kill him. He also placed himself in a defensive position to mitigate any damages done to him so he could simply out last his opponent with objectives. Had the game not been objective based he would have been slaughtered, and it may have been due to his epically bad dice rolls. Strategy is only mildly reinforced by luck, but bad luck does not stop a good strategy. The determining factor in a game is skill. The dice rolls just put a randomness to the game is all, and in some cases may determine a smaller outcome of something that is going on in a larger scale.

Sometimes on occasion a bad dice roll can turn the game around, but it doesn't determine the overall game. I don't agree with how Dash words his responses to you all, but he brings up some valid points to consider. In the end you all are arguing something that is only slightly different in concept. The bottom line is, Dash says luck exists but luck is only a small part of the game and it is mostly won by strategy. Others are saying that two equally skilled opponents win/lost a game determined by luck. Finally, some people think that luck is a larger factor and is a big part of the game.

sourclams:

The point is that the players are managing their luck, not relying on it.

For example, on average the D6 will deliver 3.5" of movement when the unit is running.

P1 can choose to move 6" out of range of P2, and then run ~3.5" forward.

Or P1 can choose to inflict 1.49 casualties, on average, 9 casualties at best. In which case the survivors of P2, if they pass their morale test, can move 9.5" and up to 12" next turn.

As you endeavor to point out, the preferable option is determined, although you failed to properly ennumerate the options available to the players.

Every choice in Warhammer can be defined as having an upper bound you hope to obtain, and a lower bound you hope to avoid, and a 'middle bound' you can reasonably expect. As a player you choose the battles you're going to fight, and you're going to bet on the options available to you.

Edit: So P1 has the following disjunct live options:

Move [6, 9.5", 12"] or Shoot [0, 1.49w, 9w]

The only problem with this set-up is that it abstracts away the relevant information about direction in the movement, because choices for P2 are narrowed or enlarged depending on whether P1 sits and shoots or moves out of range.

Well, my thought on it is that as you go up in skill, you and your opponent punish mistakes better. It's difficult to illlustrate, but at the same time, it's important.

I feel at the lower skill levels, mistakes (making a clear subpar decision) are less magnified. This makes the game more luck based at lower skill levels, because the players don't have the tactical ability to capitalize on positional advantages.

I feel as you go up in skill level, even though it takes exponential effort at each level of skill, the increased ability to punish mistakes makes skill more critical.

I don't think Ailaro's model accurately reflects this, but this is something true of any game played competitively at a high level.

I think this is critical...a little bit more skill might mean one less critical error than your opponent, and I feel those critical mistakes mean more to the game than the dice.

This is more magnified by the fact that movement is mostly not random, and that your ability to attack is directly tied to your position and whether you moved or not.

On top, objective games are decided by position, not by damage, so correct movement is a necessary condition to win most games.

If you are out of position to attack/contest/score, you cannot achieve objectives.

I finish with this: Luck may ruin a good position, but no amount of luck can really fix a bad position. This is why mistakes, even if small, are critical in high level play.

Ailaros wrote:If you want to say that I can't prove luck is a determining factor because nothing can be proved, then likewise you can't prove that luck is NOT a determining factor, because you can't prove anything either.

Where does that leave us then?

Well, that leaves us weighing experience to determine answers - which is the point all along.

You're conjecturing that at a level of play you are unfamiliar with, luck is predominant in determining the result of a game.

I'm telling you that at that level of play, that I am familiar with, luck is NOT predominant in determining the outcome of a game. I'm telling you that at YOUR level of play (as expressed by your OP), luck *is* a predominant factor in termining the outcome of the game. You've tried redefining the intent of your OP as a slightly different version of that in what I take to be a desperate attempt to not get pinned in a corner here, but I honestly don't care.

Lets just toss arrogance out here and be bold. Lets pretend that 40k is rated on a tactics scale from Level 1 to 10. I'm confident enough to put myself on Level 10. I recognize the other Level 10 players. I *know* that I don't know them all. I *think* I know (either personally or know of) the Dakkanaut L10s. Also the L9s.

When two L10 players get together....luck doesn't determine the winner. Luck isn't even a major factor. At *best* luck is a minor factor IF it is in EXTREME variance. I've already broken down what factors decide a game when two L10s get together.

All that this thread is doing is postulating what decides the winner when two L10 skill people get together. Those suppositions don't match reality. There *are* no L9 or L10 skill folks jumping in here to disagree with me, because what I write is correct. Luck has an INVERSE relationship to the one the OP is postulating. Luck increasingly matters the lower you go down the scale......not the higher you go on the scale.

So, it boils down to this, and my two arguments.

1. Luck is not a significant factor in determining the outcome of a game between two very skilled players. Unless you *are* a very skilled player, you have no credentials to comment on this. Yes, the height of arrogance. No, that doesn't mean that you have to agree with me to be considered skilled. That's what laurels are for. If someone *else* jumps in here to contest what I'm saying who has credentials as a hugely skilled player (consistently winning pretty much everything) who DISAGREES with me.....then we have room to talk. As it is, there is pretty much unanimous agreement with my point of view from those with the credentials to comment on this theory.

2. Luck has an inverse relationship to gaming skill as the one the OP suggests. I'm not going to bother with tests, or suggesting control groups or anything - just going to put it out there like that. I stand by experience to back that up, and by the experience of those with similar skill levels to mine.

So - that's about as hoity-toity as I can get. But there it is, bold as day, presented for what it is. Students trying to justify the wrong answer to the teacher don't make the wrong answer right by length of explanation or poor attempts at logic. And in case anyone either *doesn't* think I'm the height of arrogance, or alternatively doesn't think this is as funny as I think it is, let me also add in this post-note: Who's your DADDY!?!?

There are also other two major things wrong with Ailaro's model, although I pointed them out already.

1. The vast majority of us haven't achieved high level play, for whatever reason, so don't have sufficient viewpoints. The theory doesn't match up to reality, because we see the same people win over and over. That means while the model is true if the assumptions are true, the reality is that it mostly doesn't work that way. The model isn't robust enough, imo, because it doesn't fully account for this.

2. It is impossible to make the assumption that skills are equal. Even comparing similar players, there are going to be different things that each player does better. You cannot define skill this simply, Player A > B, Player B > C, does not imply necessarily that Player A > C. On top of that, people play the game differently in different regions (especially on terrain, since the rulebook doesn't clearly define terrain rules), so that alone skews things. Tournaments also include factors such as time, strange scenarios, weird things like comp and judges rulings, etc. There is no standard for faqs, and different tournaments follow different formats. The assumptions don't give an accurate view of how 40k is played competively. If you are going to assume high level play, these sort of factors are a critical part of high level play

Think about this too. Ailaros makes an assumption about the possibility of the highest level of play being completely determined by luck. I'd point out that at the lowest level of play, who wins is completely determined by luck, because both players have absolutely no skill. So at some point as skill levels go up, luck must matter less. Sometimes it's easier to disprove an idea than it is to prove it, and vice versa.

scuddman wrote:I feel as you go up in skill level, even though it takes exponential effort at each level of skill, the increased ability to punish mistakes makes skill more critical.

I like this thought, and want to give an example of it.

I played against Dayve110's Mechdar two nights ago with my Dark Eldar. No Bright Lances, no missile launchers - just an army full of scatter lasers. 6 wave serpents, 9 war-walkers....the kind of list you dread to face as a Dark Eldar player.

I won the game 15 killpoints to 6 - with 24 killpoints in my army and 17 in his. For those of you who don't know Dayve, I'd been looking to challenge him to a game because his own professed win record is something like 300 wins to 4 losses.

Our game boiled down to three crossroads.

1. Dayve reserved his three units of warwalkers so that he could outflank them. He got two units on turn 2, and one unit on turn3. I consider this to be a crucial mistake on his part, because instead of being able to alpha-strike me from the get go, he denied himself the opportunity to fire his war-walkers - which tear up my vehicles. For one turn with two units, and two turns with the third unit. When the two units of warwalkers *did* come out, they each killed a ravager - which could have been dead a turn earlier, but was not. Him reserving all three heavy supports was a mistake that I capitalized on simply by virtue of them not being there. With so many targets in a Mechdar army, I couldn't have shot at nearly everything *anyway*, so him reserving them didn't deny me targets by any means. Luck played a factor in which turns those war-walkers came in, but that was irrelevant next to the fact that I had a full turn of not being threatened by them.

2. My ravagers were positioned such that his war-walkers could access their rear armour on the turn they *did* come in. While my ravagers should have been in the center of the field or minimally at the rear flanks - they were instead in flanking positions pointed towards the center. I didn't *have* to deploy them that way, it was just convenient for facing and what I was shooting at. He exploited my OWN mistake by dropping two of my heavy supports on turn 2. It hurt. A lot. STR6 vs. Armour 10 - this is where the luck folks talk about their thing, but ultimately it was a mistake that presented my ravager rear armour to a position his war-walkers could hurt them from.

3. Target priorities: After dropping two of my ravagers with his first two volleys of turn2.....he turned to troop venoms with the rest of his anti-tank. Since he was running Mechdar, and venom cannons don't mean much to him (since he was only packing squads of 5 in those vehicles), the bigger threat to him was my remaining ravager and my trueborn. He only made that mistake one turn, and while he did allocate some fire to each of them, it wasn't enough to get the job done - which is something I brutalized him for.

There was a lot of rolling, a lot of shooting, a lot of assaults, but the outcome of our game - and I think Dayve is up there in skill level - boiled down to three things; two mistakes on his part which cost him the game, and one mistake on my part which could have cost me the game if it hadn't been outweighed by Dayve's own mistakes.

-----------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty typical of a game between two very good players. There will be one or two moments where the entire game is decided - and those moments aren't based around lucky or unlucky dice.

Dashofpepper wrote:

scuddman wrote:I feel as you go up in skill level, even though it takes exponential effort at each level of skill, the increased ability to punish mistakes makes skill more critical.

I like this thought, and want to give an example of it.

I played against Dayve110's Mechdar two nights ago with my Dark Eldar. No Bright Lances, no missile launchers - just an army full of scatter lasers. 6 wave serpents, 9 war-walkers....the kind of list you dread to face as a Dark Eldar player.

I won the game 15 killpoints to 6 - with 24 killpoints in my army and 17 in his. For those of you who don't know Dayve, I'd been looking to challenge him to a game because his own professed win record is something like 300 wins to 4 losses.

Our game boiled down to three crossroads.

1. Dayve reserved his three units of warwalkers so that he could outflank them. He got two units on turn 2, and one unit on turn3. I consider this to be a crucial mistake on his part, because instead of being able to alpha-strike me from the get go, he denied himself the opportunity to fire his war-walkers - which tear up my vehicles. For one turn with two units, and two turns with the third unit. When the two units of warwalkers *did* come out, they each killed a ravager - which could have been dead a turn earlier, but was not. Him reserving all three heavy supports was a mistake that I capitalized on simply by virtue of them not being there. With so many targets in a Mechdar army, I couldn't have shot at nearly everything *anyway*, so him reserving them didn't deny me targets by any means. Luck played a factor in which turns those war-walkers came in, but that was irrelevant next to the fact that I had a full turn of not being threatened by them.

2. My ravagers were positioned such that his war-walkers could access their rear armour on the turn they *did* come in. While my ravagers should have been in the center of the field or minimally at the rear flanks - they were instead in flanking positions pointed towards the center. I didn't *have* to deploy them that way, it was just convenient for facing and what I was shooting at. He exploited my OWN mistake by dropping two of my heavy supports on turn 2. It hurt. A lot. STR6 vs. Armour 10 - this is where the luck folks talk about their thing, but ultimately it was a mistake that presented my ravager rear armour to a position his war-walkers could hurt them from.

3. Target priorities: After dropping two of my ravagers with his first two volleys of turn2.....he turned to troop venoms with the rest of his anti-tank. Since he was running Mechdar, and venom cannons don't mean much to him (since he was only packing squads of 5 in those vehicles), the bigger threat to him was my remaining ravager and my trueborn. He only made that mistake one turn, and while he did allocate some fire to each of them, it wasn't enough to get the job done - which is something I brutalized him for.

There was a lot of rolling, a lot of shooting, a lot of assaults, but the outcome of our game - and I think Dayve is up there in skill level - boiled down to three things; two mistakes on his part which cost him the game, and one mistake on my part which could have cost me the game if it hadn't been outweighed by Dayve's own mistakes.

-----------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty typical of a game between two very good players. There will be one or two moments where the entire game is decided - and those moments aren't based around lucky or unlucky dice.

thats generally what im'ing trying to say a small mistake will change the game like a game of chess all the masters lose on super minor mistakes.

Dashofpepper wrote:
1. Luck is not a significant factor in determining the outcome of a game between two very skilled players. Unless you *are* a very skilled player, you have no credentials to comment on this. Yes, the height of arrogance. No, that doesn't mean that you have to agree with me to be considered skilled. That's what laurels are for. If someone *else* jumps in here to contest what I'm saying who has credentials as a hugely skilled player (consistently winning pretty much everything) who DISAGREES with me.....then we have room to talk. As it is, there is pretty much unanimous agreement with my point of view from those with the credentials to comment on this theory.

I agree, but there are some extreme cases of bad luck that do in fact change the outcome of a game. I have seen a Farseer with 4 warlocks lose 3 models in the first turn, fail their break test, and forever be a broken unit the rest of the game retreating. Taking away all the farseer buffs/curses and all the warlock attacks. That sort of is what I would call a game changer. The game isn't over but a vital part of your strategy is now gone. I am rusty and getting back into gaming, but trust me there are game changers. I don't think it is as bad as it used to be. Back in the day if your Librarian got the force power Vortex it was pretty much instant death to a lot of units. Powers back then were random, so luck had a much bigger factor. I am finding more and more in the 5th edition rules they took almost all of that stuff out. However, I do still think there is a very slim chance of a game changing event happening by luck that will turn a game around. I mean after all, warlocks do have a 4+ invulnerable save, but if you pelt them with enough fire power they will eventually lose their saves. Then failing a leadership test on leadership 10, is ultra rare, but I saw it happen last weekend. So I agree with you, but still think that every now and then the dice gods will throw a huge twist on your plans. A good player will adapt, a bad player will have their strategy fall apart.

2. Luck has an inverse relationship to gaming skill as the one the OP suggests. I'm not going to bother with tests, or suggesting control groups or anything - just going to put it out there like that. I stand by experience to back that up, and by the experience of those with similar skill levels to mine.

I guess I could prove this by writing a simple dice rolling program in like Python or something. Since Python has a ton of RNG modules just ready to use. However, that still doesn't prove that luck is that great of a factor. What happens when you roll 6s when you need to roll 1s and roll 1s when you need to roll 6s? In certain perspectives and situations those dice rolls could be epic, but if you need the inverse they are also epic, but in the epic fail sense. So, rolling what you need when you need it is something that is just purely random, and you cannot have a control group on. Since stat tests are low dice rolls, and hit, wound, saves are high dice rolls. So, what happens if a player is rolling low all game? They have great luck on leadership and stat tests, sweeping advances and so forth, but bad luck on everything else. Is that bad luck or good luck? Dice rolling is only subjective to the task at hand and not the whole game. Though a dice roll can trigger a game changing element if a bad roll happens. Furhtermore, just like you pointed out earlier, there are skills and war gear that allow for rerolling hits/wounds/armor saves and so forth. You can put yourself in a position to mitigate bad dice rolls which makes luck an even smaller factor.

So - that's about as hoity-toity as I can get. But there it is, bold as day, presented for what it is. Students trying to justify the wrong answer to the teacher don't make the wrong answer right by length of explanation or poor attempts at logic. And in case anyone either *doesn't* think I'm the height of arrogance, or alternatively doesn't think this is as funny as I think it is, let me also add in this post-note: Who's your DADDY!?!?

Meh, no comment on this quote....I will say that from being a competitive player back in the day I agree with a lot of what you have written. Strategy in all war games is conceptually the same, one could write a strategy framework and apply it to tons of gaming systems. Though while I agree with you, I think perhaps you should step back and take your approach about making your point in a less complex sense. Some or your analogies don't quite make sense to me, and that may be on my end, but it did take me reading several of your posts to actually grasp your actual points. I think some of your analogies strayed from your actual point, which could cause confusion and is why some people are still harping on the fact that they think you said luck doesn't exist.

Either way this has been an interesting conversation

Crom wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

If you actually read what he writes, he is not saying luck doesn't exist. He saying it is not an end all be all factor to who wins or loses a game. In his example where he had bad luck and got shot sup pretty good he still won by seizing enough objectives to win, where is opponent did nothing but try to kill him. He also placed himself in a defensive position to mitigate any damages done to him so he could simply out last his opponent with objectives. Had the game not been objective based he would have been slaughtered, and it may have been due to his epically bad dice rolls. Strategy is only mildly reinforced by luck, but bad luck does not stop a good strategy. The determining factor in a game is skill. The dice rolls just put a randomness to the game is all, and in some cases may determine a smaller outcome of something that is going on in a larger scale.

Sometimes on occasion a bad dice roll can turn the game around, but it doesn't determine the overall game. I don't agree with how Dash words his responses to you all, but he brings up some valid points to consider. In the end you all are arguing something that is only slightly different in concept. The bottom line is, Dash says luck exists but luck is only a small part of the game and it is mostly won by strategy. Others are saying that two equally skilled opponents win/lost a game determined by luck. Finally, some people think that luck is a larger factor and is a big part of the game.

That's a lot of wasted text....I know what Dash is saying...hence the flames and the laughing ork. He's getting frustrated explaining his position and I was giving him gak.

Assume equal marine armies, relatively equal skill, completely fair board.

Player 1 makes the mistake of deploying his devestators out of cover, out into the open.

1. If player 2's skill level is low, he is unlikely to be able to capitalize on this mistake with anything serious. At best, maybe 1 missile launcher shot.

2. If player 2's skill level is average, suddenly this mistake means more. He might be able to put a couple of plasma cannons or plasma shots on the devestators.

3. If player 2's skill level is high, he will fully capitalize on the mistake and make sure those devestators don't get more than 1 turn of shooting.

The same mistake means different things at different levels of skill. In the case of 3, it is a critical error. In the case of 1, it is a mostly minor error that may have limited consequence in the game.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Crom wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

If you actually read what he writes, he is not saying luck doesn't exist. He saying it is not an end all be all factor to who wins or loses a game. In his example where he had bad luck and got shot sup pretty good he still won by seizing enough objectives to win, where is opponent did nothing but try to kill him. He also placed himself in a defensive position to mitigate any damages done to him so he could simply out last his opponent with objectives. Had the game not been objective based he would have been slaughtered, and it may have been due to his epically bad dice rolls. Strategy is only mildly reinforced by luck, but bad luck does not stop a good strategy. The determining factor in a game is skill. The dice rolls just put a randomness to the game is all, and in some cases may determine a smaller outcome of something that is going on in a larger scale.

Sometimes on occasion a bad dice roll can turn the game around, but it doesn't determine the overall game. I don't agree with how Dash words his responses to you all, but he brings up some valid points to consider. In the end you all are arguing something that is only slightly different in concept. The bottom line is, Dash says luck exists but luck is only a small part of the game and it is mostly won by strategy. Others are saying that two equally skilled opponents win/lost a game determined by luck. Finally, some people think that luck is a larger factor and is a big part of the game.

That's a lot of wasted text....I know what Dash is saying...hence the flames and the laughing ork. He's getting frustrated explaining his position and I was giving him gak.

Ahh, I guess I failed at reading the emoticons.....my bad

scuddman wrote:Assume equal marine armies, relatively equal skill, completely fair board.

Player 1 makes the mistake of deploying his devestators out of cover, out into the open.

1. If player 2's skill level is low, he is unlikely to be able to capitalize on this mistake with anything serious. At best, maybe 1 missile launcher shot.

2. If player 2's skill level is average, suddenly this mistake means more. He might be able to put a couple of plasma cannons or plasma shots on the devestators.

3. If player 2's skill level is high, he will fully capitalize on the mistake and make sure those devestators don't get more than 1 turn of shooting.

The same mistake means different things at different levels of skill. In the case of 3, it is a critical error. In the case of 1, it is a mostly minor error that may have limited consequence in the game.

I expect this is un-intended, but your post does a wonderful job of showing how ridiculous the concept of "skill-level" is.

I agree, but there are some extreme cases of bad luck that do in fact change the outcome of a game. I have seen a Farseer with 4 warlocks lose 3 models in the first turn, fail their break test, and forever be a broken unit the rest of the game retreating. Taking away all the farseer buffs/curses and all the warlock attacks. That sort of is what I would call a game changer. The game isn't over but a vital part of your strategy is now gone. I am rusty and getting back into gaming, but trust me there are game changers. I don't think it is as bad as it used to be. Back in the day if your Librarian got the force power Vortex it was pretty much instant death to a lot of units. Powers back then were random, so luck had a much bigger factor. I am finding more and more in the 5th edition rules they took almost all of that stuff out. However, I do still think there is a very slim chance of a game changing event happening by luck that will turn a game around. I mean after all, warlocks do have a 4+ invulnerable save, but if you pelt them with enough fire power they will eventually lose their saves. Then failing a leadership test on leadership 10, is ultra rare, but I saw it happen last weekend. So I agree with you, but still think that every now and then the dice gods will throw a huge twist on your plans. A good player will adapt, a bad player will have their strategy fall apart.

This is really easy to fix. There is a warlock power that allows you to reroll leadership tests, including psychic tests. Take that. It not only mitigates leadership problems, it also reduces the chance of perils and increases your chance of getting a power off. In the event of a Tyranid or another Eldar player, the reroll is huge.

Working into your army methods of reducing game changers is a huge part of 40k list design, and I don't think it gets stressed enough.

BS - however unlikely - luck plays a factor.

For example you play your 3 ravagers. You position them correctly. You fire them correctly. You proceed to roll an inordinate number of 2's against an opponent. Guess what - he unloads is war walkers 24 S6 shots and rolls hot on 6s you die.

Is it your skill or lack thereof that spoke? I don't think so.

I would agree that skill in building, moving and targeting mitigate luck but luck still enters into any game. Usually it will come down to anti-vehicle fire as this is the hardest to protect from lucky or unlucky rolls due to the nature of less being able to affect vehicles and vehicles being - in general - big items that will affect a game.

Law of averages - with 6 las cannons I am going to take out a landraider but will I take it out on turn 1 or turn 5.
Turn 1 - my opponent is going to march the goodies across the board plus I still have 6 las cannons that are firing on things other than the landraider for 4 turns. Turn 5, cool I have dropped the LR but it has already done its damage and no doubt shot up some important stuff of mine.

Skill will mitigate the effects of luck but it will never get rid of it.

scuddman wrote:

I agree, but there are some extreme cases of bad luck that do in fact change the outcome of a game. I have seen a Farseer with 4 warlocks lose 3 models in the first turn, fail their break test, and forever be a broken unit the rest of the game retreating. Taking away all the farseer buffs/curses and all the warlock attacks. That sort of is what I would call a game changer. The game isn't over but a vital part of your strategy is now gone. I am rusty and getting back into gaming, but trust me there are game changers. I don't think it is as bad as it used to be. Back in the day if your Librarian got the force power Vortex it was pretty much instant death to a lot of units. Powers back then were random, so luck had a much bigger factor. I am finding more and more in the 5th edition rules they took almost all of that stuff out. However, I do still think there is a very slim chance of a game changing event happening by luck that will turn a game around. I mean after all, warlocks do have a 4+ invulnerable save, but if you pelt them with enough fire power they will eventually lose their saves. Then failing a leadership test on leadership 10, is ultra rare, but I saw it happen last weekend. So I agree with you, but still think that every now and then the dice gods will throw a huge twist on your plans. A good player will adapt, a bad player will have their strategy fall apart.

This is really easy to fix. There is a warlock power that allows you to reroll leadership tests, including psychic tests. Take that. It not only mitigates leadership problems, it also reduces the chance of perils and increases your chance of getting a power off. In the event of a Tyranid or another Eldar player, the reroll is huge.

Working into your army methods of reducing game changers is a huge part of 40k list design, and I don't think it gets stressed enough.

Yup and I am not the Eldar player in our small group, my buddy is. He never failed a leadership test yet, but last game he did and it was an epic game changer because they were under half unit strength. In games before he usually whoops up with them until more towards the end of the game. He also got a bit over confident with them and deployed them very close to the enemy (dawn of war mission). He now is going to take the war gear to reroll failed Ld tests, because he learned his lesson. His 3 dice on enemy psyker wargear really shot down my rune priests one game, luckily for me I made all my perils saving throws.

I think real skill comes from learning from your mistakes, and the ability to try new things. With my Space Wolves I got tanks, and dreads and I can field them or I got lots of long fangs. Sometimes it works out in the sense my opponent will got all anti armor to take out my dreads and tanks, but I end up going long fangs instead and make is anti armor a bit useless.

This is a tactic to beat somebody too.

So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

Then in the middle of his explanation, say:

So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

When he finishes, say:

So Dash....tell me once again why you think luck doesnt exist in a game of 40k and that there is only skill.....

I'm in good running shape, I bet he can't catch me.

Level 9 and level 10, geeze this sounds more absurd the further you take it Dash. You act as if anyone who is any good at this game has to agree with you. Sorry, I don't. I've got plenty of credentials as a player, and no need to whip it out in every post I make, as if to suggest that it makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's. I've finished in the top ten of hundred+ person events each of the last four years. Of course, I haven't played the mighty DashOfPepper, so I guess none of that means anything.

When you say "all the level 10s agree with you", nothing could be further from the truth. People with better, and more enduring records than yours agree that luck plays a significant role at top level tournament play. I've seen Marc Parker - with more GT wins than anyone else - get knocked out of a tournament in the first round due to a lucky draw. I've seen Bill Kim admit to getting lucky that he didn't have to play a certain build. I've also seen him knocked out of an event in the first round due to having to play another top player. No, not everyone agrees with you, and no, you're not the only good player in the world, or even on Dakka. Matchups, which are more a result of luck than anything else, determine more games in top-level play than anything else, with first-turn rolls and other early game gambits (like Daemonic Assault) coming in a close second. This game is no where near as deep as your ego needs it to be to back up this ridiculous persona that you've built.

My experience, in top level play, is that luck plays a huge role in these games. I played in the Adepticon invitational a few years back, where only players who had finished in the top ten of a GT the year before were invited to play. Every game was against a top level player. And many of those games came down to luck. Yeah, some were decided by critical mistakes made at the wrong time, and exploited by the opponent. But those that weren't... you can only call it luck.

The "you're not as good as I am so you're not at the level to see this" schtick is wearing thin. You forget how many other people have been where you are now, and how they've grown as people. How 'winning every game' isn't as important as having fun playing the game. How the really good players retire armies after winning with them, looking for a new challenge, rather than simply building up a meaningless kill-tally. Just because other posters aren't actively running around the country looking to boost their rating doesn't mean they've forgotten how to play, or what being competitive is about, it just means they've grown past it - largely because, as the OP stated, the game isn't that deep, and is very based on luck. So they stop trying so hard, and learn to enjoy the game for what it is. They bring sub-optimal lists, because there's more challenge in doing that. That doesn't mean they're bad players, or that they're not in your mythical 'level 10', it means they realized that 40k is a beer & peanuts kind of game, not a cutthroat competitive pursuit. And it certainly doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer in a discussion. If you want to have conversations only with your level 10 buddies, you might as well sit in a corner and talk to yourself.

Someone should ask Legoburner if he can rig up Skill-Level markers so that everyone is clear about the size of their e-penis.

I've been called an elitist Connoisseur of Crap. That means I'm level 11. I'm so elitist, I'm above all of ya.

Yeah, this one goes to 11! <sticks both thumbs at self>

On a more serious note, I think we all mostly agree to one degree or another..yet we're at ten pages and counting.

I think when I'm asked, "Was that luck or skill?"

I'll just answer yes and call it a day.

Redbeard wrote:Level 9 and level 10, geeze this sounds more absurd the further you take it Dash. You act as if anyone who is any good at this game has to agree with you. Sorry, I don't. I've got plenty of credentials as a player, and no need to whip it out in every post I make, as if to suggest that it makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's. I've finished in the top ten of hundred+ person events each of the last four years. Of course, I haven't played the mighty DashOfPepper, so I guess none of that means anything.

No, there is no need to whip it out in every post. But in a thread ABOUT HOW YOU WIN AT THE MOST COMPETITIVE LEVELS......my credentials as a player in the most competitive levels is sort of required for me to justify my opinion as belonging both in that level and qualified to give an opinion about it.

It doesn't belong in every thread and every post, but it *does* belong in this one. And yes - being *in* the bracket under discussion *does* make your opinion about *that* bracket more valid. Drop your facepalms, your sarcasm, your bad attitude, and your intentional disregard for the value of this discussion to snipe at me. Stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
When you say "all the level 10s agree with you", nothing could be further from the truth. People with better, and more enduring records than yours agree that luck plays a significant role at top level tournament play. I've seen Marc Parker - with more GT wins than anyone else - get knocked out of a tournament in the first round due to a lucky draw. I've seen Bill Kim admit to getting lucky that he didn't have to play a certain build. I've also seen him knocked out of an event in the first round due to having to play another top player. No, not everyone agrees with you, and no, you're not the only good player in the world, or even on Dakka. Matchups, which are more a result of luck than anything else, determine more games in top-level play than anything else, with first-turn rolls and other early game gambits (like Daemonic Assault) coming in a close second. This game is no where near as deep as your ego needs it to be to back up this ridiculous persona that you've built.

Then get those people to come here and post. The theory is "At the highest levels of 40k skill, luck is more important than any other factor in determining the winner." See if they agree. Because I bet they don't. I count myself lucky that I didn't have to play Hulksmash at the Socal Slaughter last year. That doesn't mean that I think luck determines my games. Which is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. Stop ignoring the main thrust of this ridiculous hypothesis so that you can snipe at me.

Redbeard wrote:Level 9 and level 10, geeze this sounds more absurd the further you take it Dash. You act as if anyone who is any good at this game has to agree with you. Sorry, I don't. I've got plenty of credentials as a player, and no need to whip it out in every post I make, as if to suggest that it makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's. I've finished in the top ten of hundred+ person events each of the last four years. Of course, I haven't played the mighty DashOfPepper, so I guess none of that means anything.

When you say "all the level 10s agree with you", nothing could be further from the truth. People with better, and more enduring records than yours agree that luck plays a significant role at top level tournament play. I've seen Marc Parker - with more GT wins than anyone else - get knocked out of a tournament in the first round due to a lucky draw. I've seen Bill Kim admit to getting lucky that he didn't have to play a certain build. I've also seen him knocked out of an event in the first round due to having to play another top player. No, not everyone agrees with you, and no, you're not the only good player in the world, or even on Dakka. Matchups, which are more a result of luck than anything else, determine more games in top-level play than anything else, with first-turn rolls and other early game gambits (like Daemonic Assault) coming in a close second. This game is no where near as deep as your ego needs it to be to back up this ridiculous persona that you've built.

My experience, in top level play, is that luck plays a huge role in these games. I played in the Adepticon invitational a few years back, where only players who had finished in the top ten of a GT the year before were invited to play. Every game was against a top level player. And many of those games came down to luck. Yeah, some were decided by critical mistakes made at the wrong time, and exploited by the opponent. But those that weren't... you can only call it luck.

The "you're not as good as I am so you're not at the level to see this" schtick is wearing thin. You forget how many other people have been where you are now, and how they've grown as people. How 'winning every game' isn't as important as having fun playing the game. How the really good players retire armies after winning with them, looking for a new challenge, rather than simply building up a meaningless kill-tally. Just because other posters aren't actively running around the country looking to boost their rating doesn't mean they've forgotten how to play, or what being competitive is about, it just means they've grown past it - largely because, as the OP stated, the game isn't that deep, and is very based on luck. So they stop trying so hard, and learn to enjoy the game for what it is. They bring sub-optimal lists, because there's more challenge in doing that. That doesn't mean they're bad players, or that they're not in your mythical 'level 10', it means they realized that 40k is a beer & peanuts kind of game, not a cutthroat competitive pursuit. And it certainly doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer in a discussion. If you want to have conversations only with your level 10 buddies, you might as well sit in a corner and talk to yourself.

I think he was talking about people's thetan levels.......

Could you give some examples of how luck was a huge factor? I think Dash is off in his own world, but I think he brings valid points. I think dice rolling is not as huge a factor as tactics, but I am open to your ideas and would like to hear your experiences with luck being a huge factor.

Seriously though, I think those that understand, understand.

And dash, you comiing to so cal slaughter this year?

And I'm still level 11 if you don't come and beat me.

Then again...<pouts> he might not want to play me. He knows what I'll ask him the first time I see him.

scuddman wrote:Seriously though, I think those that understand, understand.

Tell me something - are people being intentionally obtuse, or am I really explaining it badly?

It seems fairly self evident, that if you play against another player you deem to be of equal skill, but you win say, 7 or 8 games out of 10, then surely you are not infact of equal skill? Either that, or one of you has been consistently very very unlucky. While true that greater skill gives you greater ability to exploit bad luck, it also gives your opponent greater ability to minimize the impact of bad luck on his game plan. If he goes out on a shaky limb, and leaves a great deal hanging on the result of luck, he's clearly not as good a player as he could be. Good players consistently try to ensure that their plan will not be massively disrupted on the outcome of a single, or few dice rolls.

This seems to leave a very clear conclusion. Assuming two equally skilled players are facing off against eachother, we can assume that neither will make any significant errors, and neither will allow anything critical to the result of a single, or small number of bad dice rolls. At this point, luck has an amplified effect compared what what it would for two lesser skilled players. If one player simply cannot hit or wound for the life of him, all his hit rolls are coming up 2's, his wound dice seem to have a 1 on every face... then logically his opponent should win. Or of course, the other extreme too. One guy is on fire, every shot seems to hit and wound, he makes every single damned armour or cover save he's called upon to make, he just cannot fail. Logically, he wins. Not because of anything his opponent did wrong, or he did right... but because the dice were good to him. Tactics still have an effect, any player, no matter how good will still make small errors here and there, but compared to the impact the dice can have, these are small in effect. Putting a squad in a slightly poor position, where their fire-arc is compromised is a small mistake. It's impact on gameplay is nothing, compared to failing to hit or wound with an entire round of shooting from half your army.

Just playing in tournaments, does not neccesarily mean you are playing against players as skilled as yourself, or even neccesarily particularly skilled AT ALL. And be honest, I'm sure all of you out there have had a game where either your opponent had dismal luck, or you had astounding luck and you won as a result. Dont lie, I know you've had those games.

My experience is that people have preconceived notions about winning. You know, it's like what I hear in basketball. "You can only win if you're tall!"
Or "You can only win in street fighter with godly reflexes."

That's the thing about logical processes. The area of the brain (I just studied this in psychology) that makes rational decisions is the same area that makes emotional and ethical judgement calls.

Oh, well then, it's science.

I've got to Agree with Dash. What people are describing, but haven't put a word to here is: Variance.

Variance: By definition, is the idea that random data tends to run in streaks. The way you limit any sort of negative variance is to increase the number of tests against that variance:

To whit

Since a Las-cannon can mis 33% of the time (when fired by a marine) and fail to wound 16% of the time. To reliably kill one marine, you would want to fire 1.79 las-cannons at him to kill him consistently (round up to two call, it good)

You would want to fire 9 boltershots at that same marine to reliably kill him.

Here's the deal, since you fire 9 boltershots the likelyhood that you're going to have an even distrubition of shots is MUCH higher than the odds of having that even distrobution of las-cannon shots. Compare that also to the fact that those 9 bolter shots are going to be the superior cost effective choice when trying to kill marines, coupled with a max-kill rate of 9 total dead marines, versus only 2 dead marines with las-cannons max each firing phase brings us to a fundamental conclusion in 40k.

--The more dice you roll, the less luck matters.

I had the same kind of W/L run Dash had with Tomb Kings in 6th and 7th ed (8th is proving to be a new kind of monster that I'm struggling to wrap my head around but whatevs)

What's interesting here, is the people who are disagreeing with Dash, it's not one or two mistakes that cost you the game, but rather, the dice abandoning you, probably have either never actually sat down, and re-played the game in their minds, trying to figure out "how they lost" or if they have, they haven't had those ah-hah moments.

I've been pooh-poohed by several of my opponents after the game pointing to a point on the table and saying something like "Hey, on turn 3 when you did X with your Cavalry.. that pretty much wrapped it up, don't do that next time" But the ability to actually SEE that on the table... It's like gold when playing a game based on random numbers.