Why are armies that people think are not that great winning most of the tournaments?

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.

**Redbeard**

stormboy97 wrote:I find this kind of discussion interesting and valuable. However, I am frustrated by opinions that by talking about the game, and educating players One reduces one's chance to win. This ultimately turns the hobby into a very closed-rank mentality of gamesmanship. This may be an outgrowth of the kinds of folks that play with little plastic men. But it is a culture that I feel needs to change.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I think that discussions of how to play, and why things work benefit the entire community in the long run, as you will end up with better games as a result.

I think that one thing really lacking in most online discussion about wargames is a discussion of fundamental concepts and tactics. So much emphasis is placed on analyzing lists, but very little is placed on in-game tactics. Isn't it the tactics that really wins games?

**Kingsley**

I definitely agree that tactical discussion is distinctly lacking. This is the community where "use tactics" is considered a joke.

**Redbeard**

I don't think that using tactics is considered a joke. Stating that a bad unit is good if you "use tactics" is a joke.

**Eidolon**

Redbeard wrote:I don't think that using tactics is considered a joke. Stating that a bad unit is good if you "use tactics" is a joke.

I will beat that raider rush army with my 30 scorpions and 15 shining spears one day, just you wait and see.

**Warmaster**

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eidolon wrote:
Here are a few simple, easy to answer questions for all you tournament guros.

1-Do you make a point of playing in any event you can? Be it a little 10 man local tournament or a 20 man 60 miles away?

2-Are you selective of who you play casually?

3-How many games do you get in a week.

4-Is there a sense of comradery among you best of the best. I would assume that you could say 'well i made it to table 1, but lost to Marc, Bill, Allen, Scott', so I didnt do too bad.
----------------------------------------

1-I'm more apt to play in local tournaments and try to hit 1 or 2 big ones a year.
2-I play whoever shows up at the local hobby shop.
3-Lately, only about 1 a week, I try to average one local tournament a month as well, so that might boost my numbers up to a 2x week average.
4-Out of the local best of the best, yes, everyone knows each other and there is some good natured ribbing. Can't really say on the national level.

A couple of comments,

I usually post just about every tournament I go to in the batreps section. I also try to post my weekly casual games (because those are usually the only ones I get pictures of). Maybe it's my style of writing, or maybe no one likes the armies I play but I generally don't see a lot of talk in the threads. I tend to draw more comments when I lose than when I win tho. Maybe that's because when I lose the game I tend to write out why I feel I lost the game.

I'm more than willing to provide feedback, design army lists, help refine lists, and give suggestions after games. I never just jump in and give it and always wait until asked or ask them if they would like a few pointers.

The way people get better at this hobby is by playing more games, and by playing people that are better/equal in skill level. If you are the person that has the greater skill level in an area then you will tend to stagnate, unless you can bring other players up to your level. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the most fun I have a tournaments is when I have 3 hard fought draw's, or down to the wire games, they aren't the ones that will win the tournament for you but they are the most fun to do.

I also theme my armies. I don't build net lists, and I will actively shy away from things that are getting too popular. I would rather play something obscure and unique that's a little less powerfull but I will have more fun playing.

**skrulnik**

Throughout history, the best generals were those who could win regardless of the situation and tools available. Along with a bit of luck.
I believe the same applies to 40k. But we have the added ability of determining the assets we have and only need to worry about the variables of the scenario and the opponents forces.
The concept that all forces should have an equal chance of winning regardless of scenario is just impossible to achieve.

I do feel that it could be beneficial to the gaming community if army lists were shared.
I know that on the Podhammer and World's End Radio podcasts they are constantly running through entire army lists and builds.
Also, Warmachine and Hordes lists are usually available.

I do get the impression that a lot of the good players are unwilling to put the lists out there for consumption.
I disagree that they need to tell people how to use the lists.
40k scenarios, table layout, and possible opponent permutations are too varied to give hard-n-fast advice.
The ability to adjust your plan mid-game also seems to be a requisite for a consistently good player.

That said, it would be great if those with the time and skills would contribute to the tactica articles we have here on Dakka.

**Kilkrazy**

Luck is nothing to do with game balance. It is a simulation the random factor of war. A good general will play the odds, and sometimes he will lose anyway.

If you want to make a balanced tournament which is purely about player skill, you allow only one list, let's say vanilla SMs and everyone has to play with the same list, the same set of scenarios, on the same terrain setups.

It would probably be a fairly dull tournament because half the fun of the game is the variety of armies.

**Blackmoor**

Redbeard wrote:I don't think that using tactics is considered a joke. Stating that a bad unit is good if you "use tactics" is a joke.

How do you quantify what units are bad, and which ones are good?

I like a lot of units that conventional wisdom says are bad. (Legion of the Damned, Flash Gitz,etc.)

I was winning a lot of tournaments with my Thousand Sons with the 2nd, 3rd edition chaos codex when everyone was saying that the army was one of the worst in the game:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/102103.page

Don’t get me wrong, there are units I think are overpriced, and units that I can’t get to work for me, but I think that there are very few really bad units.

**Warmaster**

Blackmoor wrote:
Redbeard wrote:I don't think that using tactics is considered a joke. Stating that a bad unit is good if you "use tactics" is a joke.

How do you quantify what units are bad, and which ones are good?

I like a lot of units that conventional wisdom says are bad. (Legion of the Damned, Flash Gitz,etc.)

I was winning a lot of tournaments with my Thousand Sons with the 2nd, 3rd edition chaos codex when everyone was saying that the army was one of the worst in the game:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/102103.page

Don’t get me wrong, there are units I think are overpriced, and units that I can’t get to work for me, but I think that there are very few really bad units.

The old Sons list was all types of awesome. I remember making nidzilla lists and dark eldar just cry with that army. Between all the flamers dishing out str 5 ap4, and dumping something like 8 str 8 shots plus las cannons from the predators each turn. And then there was the 5 attack sorcerer with a power fist and visage hiding in 18 wounds worth of thousand sons, it was a beautifull army, completely neutered by the latest book unfortunately.

**Alpharius**

Blackmoor wrote:
Redbeard wrote:I don't think that using tactics is considered a joke. Stating that a bad unit is good if you "use tactics" is a joke.

How do you quantify what units are bad, and which ones are good?

I like a lot of units that conventional wisdom says are bad. (Legion of the Damned, Flash Gitz,etc.)

I was winning a lot of tournaments with my Thousand Sons with the 2nd, 3rd edition chaos codex when everyone was saying that the army was one of the worst in the game:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/102103.page

Don’t get me wrong, there are units I think are overpriced, and units that I can’t get to work for me, but I think that there are very few really bad units.

I am a very casual gamer these days, much more of a modeler/painter so...

I like those two units - can you please detail the 'good', especially for Flashgitz? (One of my favorite units!)

**Kingsley**

I agree with Blackmoor. There are very few units in 40k that I would consider unplayable, especially in the new Codices.

**Kirika**

Two reasons I can think of.

First is a good player who knows his/her army inside and out and played it for awhile is better then someone just netlisting the latest power list and doesn't have much experience with it.

Second Comp. The hard lists people know win get low comp scores. Something that people don't think is good gets a good comp score. To win a tournament with a low comp score is difficult because you basically start down a game.

**Kingsley**

Comp is very rare in the modern US tournament scene.

**Caffran9**

Blackmoor wrote:I post my batreps to show people what goes on in major tournaments, and to follow along, and to see the types of armies you face, and to see how the people play. I also do it to show that you can win with non-traditional lists, and that you can do well with just about any army if it is well balanced, but it ain't worth the hassle.

I think in the future if I post them I will keep them to my blog. Especially since it takes a long time and a lot of work to write them.

No. Please no. I'm sure you're at least partially aware that the people who have negative things to say bitch 1000x louder than the people who read your reports and incite, think critically and consider what you've said, then learn from it. I always enjoy your reports (and others posted by top players) because I always learn something from them. I can see glimpses of the way you guys consider the game and approach situations, and I gain valuable incite into the game from that. Honestly I feel that you guys don't post enough! I do also think that those of us who really appreciate your posts and reports are less vocal about it though, so it is very easy to think that the majority of people are critical and derogatory. I guess it is always easier to be loud when criticizing someone than when praising them.

**asugradinwa**

I agree, I love reading Blackmoor's battle reports.

**Eidolon**

I third this. Blackmoors reports kick ass.

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

I also agree.

**Gornall**

Yup... I also appreciate having high quality batreps to read. I wish that those talking all the smack would put their money where their mouth is and post batreps.

**Eidolon**

Your ass is mine Gornall. Story at 11

**Kingsley**

I definitely appreciate the tournament battle reports that get posted here on Dakka, especially when they come from the perspective of someone who placed highly in the event.

**proximity**

I like writing battle reports, as I try to focus more on how the armies were played, rather than just what was in them.
I realise that I am often giving away more information than I should if i wanted to retain some sort of 'competitive edge', but I would rather help strengthen my competition to in turn, force myself to improve further.

I don't truly believe in a paper scissor rock structure where there is a best army that beats that other best army and so on and so forth.

Because peoples play style can effect things so strongly, an incredible unit for player A could be a rubbish unit to player B. That doesnt make either player better than the other, but rather just helps add to the complexity and diversity of the game we play.

Blackmoor, I appreciate the reports you write, I'm used to seeing lists that aren't a cliche power build, but it's nice to see how they operate in your environment, which is so drastically different to my own.

**Redbeard**

Blackmoor wrote:
How do you quantify what units are bad, and which ones are good?

In my mind there are three criteria.

1) Units that fail to do what they're designed to do are bad units.

The biggest example of this, in my mind, is Sisters Repentia. Run across the field with a craptacular save on a T3 model. On the off-chance that you make it into combat, swing last with but one attack each. All this for the low low cost of 20 points/model. Repentia are one of the easiest units in the game to neutralize - you can render them useless in the movement phase, in the shooting phase or in the assault phase.

2) Units that do their job for more points, or less effectively than another unit in the same codex are a bad unit.

Flash Gitz are a bad unit in most situations because their job can be fulfilled with a scoring unit that has more resiliency for less points. Sure, every once in a blue moon you face Deathwing, and the 1/3rd chance for an AP2 shot comes in useful - but in general, shoota boyz are a much better choice. And they can bring a nob w/ powerklaw and bosspole and still be cheaper.

I'm sure that if you run out of slots for one type of thing, and want to have more of them, then this unit can serve a purpose - I think I saw an ork list that used flash gitz in this way, because he'd already maxxed out his troops. Well, okay.

3) Units that are significantly overpriced are bad units.

We're not talking about the difference between a Chaos Predator and a Marine Predator. Sure, the chaos pred is 5 or 10 points more, but that's not a lot in the greater scheme of things. We're talking about things like Penitent Engines. Penitent Engines don't fall into the above categories - they do something that nothing else in the Witch Hunter codex does - they're a walker. And a solid assault unit to boot. But they're overpriced. Consider that a killa-kan is 40 points, for a squadron-based walker with a heavy flamer, and AV11, and the 80 point price-tag on a penitent engine seems ridiculous. 50 points - ok, they'd be a decent unit - they still die very easily at AV11-Open Topped, but you could mass them at a reasonable price. 80 - that just makes them bad.

**Caffran9**

Gornall wrote:Yup... I also appreciate having high quality batreps to read. I wish that those talking all the smack would put their money where their mouth is and post batreps.

I have also noticed that the ones who tend to create all the commotion in report threads and such tend to not have anything to post themselves. That always makes me chuckle a bit.

**Illumini**

It is so sad about the repentia and the pentient, really cool models, definitively the coolest in the entire WH range, but just aweful rules/hideously overpriced

**Mannahnin**

Fetterkey wrote:This is the community where "use tactics" is considered a joke.

As noted, "use tactics" is used as a joke in reference to people who attempt to defend poor army list design or sub-par units by claiming that they magically perform well if one uses tactics, as if this was not assumed. Though I do agree with the recent discussion in this thread that a lot of units and army designs are not as horrible as they are labeled. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.

Fetterkey wrote:I definitely agree that tactical discussion is distinctly lacking.

I think this is endemic to the entire web, since real tactical discussion tends to be time-consuming and detailed. That's not to say it hasn't been done before, though. Panzerleader's has a couple of good threads recently. I wrote an article on Refused Flank deployment a while back.

The Refused Flank

I suggested a couple of possible types of threads earlier:

...Given that your current approach seems unlikely to succeed at persuading current tourney-winning players to start giving classes, I can suggest two types of threads to try.

1. Discussions of currently successful lists, with reasoned analysis of what they bring and don’t bring in general, match ups against particular armies and in particular missions. This idea is one in which you may successfully solicit feedback from the players of the armies themselves. If you ask directed, respectful questions, you may elicit useful feedback on the reasoning behind the choices those players made.

You could start with threads on Blackmoor, Darkwynn, Shep, and/or Darth Diggler’s lists, based on the comments they’ve already made here (and on BOLS, for Darkwynn). You could copy & paste their comments from the tournament & battle report notes, for easy reference in said new threads. Bear in mind that you need to start from the assumption that there are reasons behind what they choose to take. Sometimes the reasons may not be pure winning/killing power, but given that battle points are still the dominant factor for tourney success, these lists MUST have something going for them.

While I know you’re aware of most of these already, I’m going to link several battle reports which include tactical commentary. I’m also including a Warhammer Fantasy report by Jarrett Messing, a top US WH player, who just won his first GT this past September. It’s a very detailed report, with some really excellent insights.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/262479.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/217900.page#375310
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/261905.page
http://warmongers.ziggyqubert.com/wmbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7640&hilit=necro+battle+report

2. Discussions of actual tabletop tactics. How and why to deploy in certain ways, or use reserve to advantage. How to deploy in response to particular enemy tactics or builds. How to maneuver to achieve a Win in Capture & Control with a Spearhead deployment, which is a mission/deployment combination which has a reputation for producing Draws.

These types of threads tend to be pretty complex and time-consuming. Describing tabletop situations in detail tends to take a lot of words, and/or good diagrams. Panzerleader has recently started a couple threads like this in the Tactics forum;I think they have some really solid ideas and might make a good starting point. One issue here is that I think a large number of forum posters don’t really want to put a lot of time and effort into posting. You’ll note that Panzerleader’s first Challenge post drew quite a bit of feedback and a good number of posts. The second gave a more detailed scenario, with excellent questions and a great diagram, but drew only one response.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/262935.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/259930.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/260838.page

**ZacktheChaosChild**

Because people who talk

about other "lower tier" armies underestimate them when they play them. They don't realize that good players can kick the Chaos bile out of anyone with any army...

.....

..........

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Here are a few simple, easy to answer questions for all you tournament guros.

1-Do you make a point of playing in any event you can? Be it a little 10 man local tournament or a 20 man 60 miles away?
2-Are you selective of who you play casually?
3-How many games do you get in a week.
4-Is there a sense of comradery among you best of the best. I would assume that you could say 'well i made it to table 1, but lost to Marc, Bill, Allen, Scott', so I didnt do too bad.

I'll give this a crack.

1. No - I prefer to play in events where I know there will be a certain level of quality in player generalship. I have been playing in events long enough to know who would be considered a"high power" player. I rarely go to the smaller events, but plan to do a little more just to help promote things in the local and regional area.

2. Typically yes. I prefer to practice more even though I will experiment with a wide variety of armies.

3. Outside of a heavy tournament season, typically one every week to two weeks. While practicing for a big event, typically - two to four times a week.

4. Yes, I believe there is a big sense of camaraderie among the best of the best. I actively talk to Marc Parker, Bill Kim, Allen Hernandez, Shaun Kemp, Chris Merschedt and many more throughout the US. I will call people and let them know when we are traveling to an event. Our Toledo group went to DaBoyz GT to not only play in the event, but to also hang out with Shaun, Jay, Eric, Chris and the rest of the DaBoyz. I traveled to the 'ard Boyz Finals just to hang out with some of the AdeptiCon crew.

As far as tactics go - I would agree that there is definitely a lack of true tactical discussion. People have asked for assistance on an army and normally I will provide some detailed discussion. However, I don't give away all of our tricks. We have worked hard to come up with some of the more creative maneuvers.

I see that people need to just pay attention in their games when they play against a high powered player. I see people so worried about losing that they don't appreciate the subtle tactical maneuvering that is happening right before their eyes. They fall into traps and never try to figure out why it happened. Instead - I see their army fall apart, a lot of complaining about specific army builds, and dinging on comp. But no real learning as to why. Players need to take losing in stride, use it as a learning experience and if you can stomach it - ask your opponent for their opinion on why you lost. You would be surprised at how willing people are to offer their opinion. You may actually stumble across some new tactical concepts (which you can post online).

Overall, I continue to learn and evolve after every game. Subtle maneuvers, unit combinations, unit rules, army builds and more. So much to learn and still too much fun.

**Redbeard**

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
I see that people need to just pay attention in their games when they play against a high powered player. I see people so worried about losing that they don't appreciate the subtle tactical maneuvering that is happening right before their eyes. They fall into traps and never try to figure out why it happened.

This is a bit unfair. You need to be at a certain level to be able to get to the next level. I played against a chess national master once. I'm an okay chess player, but have never studied it deeply. We weren't six moves into the game and I knew he was moving me where he wanted me to be, and setting me up, but I'll be damned if I couldn't figure out how, or why.

This happens in 40k too. A player who is too many levels behind you in their knowledge isn't going to get anything out of the loss, all they're going to see is that they were tabled. They'll look at a couple of localized engagements, not realize the subtle setup that took place, and will probably write it off as you getting lucky, winning an assault that they expected to win. Someone who isn't ready to see what you're showing them isn't going to see it.

I've tried to go into some of the in-game tactics (rather than "tacticas") on my old blog. Most of it is based around 4th ed though, and I haven't rewritten much for 5th ed, although I've put a couple of articles into the system here. I really should try to revamp some more of them.

**Blackmoor**

Tactics are hard to break down on the interwebz. There is a lot that goes on, that it is hard to write down. I think tactics might be better to shown on video rather than in words.

I might really break down my game 5 of WWSO since that was a normal mission against a good player and talk about all the details and show what happened.

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Redbeard wrote:[This is a bit unfair. You need to be at a certain level to be able to get to the next level. I played against a chess national master once. I'm an okay chess player, but have never studied it deeply. We weren't six moves into the game and I knew he was moving me where he wanted me to be, and setting me up, but I'll be damned if I couldn't figure out how, or why.

This happens in 40k too. A player who is too many levels behind you in their knowledge isn't going to get anything out of the loss, all they're going to see is that they were tabled. They'll look at a couple of localized engagements, not realize the subtle setup that took place, and will probably write it off as you getting lucky, winning an assault that they expected to win. Someone who isn't ready to see what you're showing them isn't going to see it.

I've tried to go into some of the in-game tactics (rather than "tacticas") on my old blog. Most of it is based around 4th ed though, and I haven't rewritten much for 5th ed, although I've put a couple of articles into the system here. I really should try to revamp some more of them.

Actually it is quite a fair assessment. It all depends on attitude. A lot of players will fall into the problem you describe. That is their downfall and not really the problem of the higher level player. Yet, I have seen players who are many levels behind and have said "I feel like I have learned so much from this game". It's not the job of a higher level player to change the attitude of others. However, they should be willing to provide insight if asked. That my friend is the difference and is quite a fair approach.