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:

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?

Both, your analogies are sort of going off your point. The argument of quantifying skill level to a number is also, not really a good argument. Look at any professional athlete, and look at their stats each year. The top tier are always beating each other, and their records are being broken, but that doesn't take away their skill at the game. While skill level is a determining factor for many games, it also is not the end all be all either. Michael Jordan lost plenty of games, but is still regarded as one of the best basketball player of all time. Skill is important and probably the largest factor in the game, but luck will always have a piece in it, and so will your opponent and their choices.

Really games are subjective and you win by applying what you know when the situation happens. It is like fighting in real life. You can spar all day, and train all day, but a fight is pure chaos, all random actions and reactions. You can fight the same person 100 times in the ring and never have the same exact fight twice. While the fights will share a lot of similarities they will never be a carbon copy of each other. You need to be able to adapt and over come. That really just comes with experience in my opinion more so than anything else.

Speaking of DashofPepper's public record, there's a great battle report where he got hosed by some player that didn't co-operate and jump headfirst into the meat-grinder that DashofPepper was fielding. I think it's a very good example of how game play is about choosing strategies, rather than just plunking down an army and hoping to get lucky.

Both, your analogies are sort of going off your point. The argument of quantifying skill level to a number is also, not really a good argument. Look at any professional athlete, and look at their stats each year. The top tier are always beating each other, and their records are being broken, but that doesn't take away their skill at the game. While skill level is a determining factor for many games, it also is not the end all be all either. Michael Jordan lost plenty of games, but is still regarded as one of the best basketball player of all time. Skill is important and probably the largest factor in the game, but luck will always have a piece in it, and so will your opponent and their choices.

Really games are subjective and you win by applying what you know when the situation happens. It is like fighting in real life. You can spar all day, and train all day, but a fight is pure chaos, all random actions and reactions. You can fight the same person 100 times in the ring and never have the same exact fight twice. While the fights will share a lot of similarities they will never be a carbon copy of each other. You need to be able to adapt and over come. That really just comes with experience in my opinion more so than anything else.

Aren't we really just saying the same thing? I'm just trying to use Ailaros's assumptions to show why his model doesn't make complete sense. Nobody is saying luck isn't a factor. What Ailaro's is saying is that at high level, luck is the ONLY factor...and that's what we're trying to disprove.

Oh, Nurglitch, as much of a naysayer I sounded like in the thread, I did really like your game theory thread. How come you didn't finish it? The reason why I was so critical in that thread was because I was trying to make your ideas better.

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 don't think Ailaro's model accurately reflects this

Actually, It does.

40k is a competitive game between two players. Just looking at your own skill level in a vacuum isn't useful. Yes, as you get better, you can punish your opponent for their mistakes (which, remember is defined as luck causing risks to fail). At the same time, as your opponent gets better, they can mitigate their mistakes better. Thus, skill cancels out skill, the closer that the two opponent's skill levels get.

Which is what my entire theory is about.

scuddman wrote:The theory doesn't match up to reality, because we see the same people win over and over.

Actually, the theory gives two very viable reasons for why the same people can win over and over: they're playing worse opponents, and/or they're relatively lucky.

scuddman wrote:It is impossible to make the assumption that skills are equal.

Equality of skill is not a necessary component. Indeed, because skill levels can not be exactly equal, this theory works under the assumption that skills are INequal.

scuddman wrote: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.

Actually, the theory points out that luck is the most determining factor when the two player's skills are similar REGARDLESS of their skill level.

Dashofpepper wrote: I think Dayve is up there in skill level - boiled down to three things; two mistakes on his part which cost him the game

So, with regards to this data point, regardless of what you think of your opponent's skill level, he lost because he made mistakes. This means that you and your opponent are not equal skill levels. In fact, I'd assert that your opponent mustn't have played at a skill level "up there", or at least not as high as yours. That or you rolled well enough so that your opponent's high-kill-level risk management caused him to take decisions that were thwarted by your die rolling.

scuddman wrote:The same mistake means different things at different levels of skill.

Actually, the same mistake means different things at different RELATIVE levels of skill. As you yourself note, the only time when the mistake will make a difference is when the two players are of grossly unequal skill.

Dashofpepper wrote: Luck has an INVERSE relationship to the one the OP is postulating. 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.

Okay, why?

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, that leaves us weighing experience to determine answers... You're conjecturing that at a level of play you are unfamiliar with... I'm confident enough to put myself on Level 10... There *are* folks jumping in here to disagree with me, because what I write is correct. Unless you *are* a very skilled player, you have no credentials to comment on this. There is pretty much unanimous agreement with my point of view from those with the credentials to comment on this theory. I stand by experience to back that up, and by the experience of those with similar skill levels to mine. Who's your DADDY!?!?

Do you really not see how all of this is a logical fallacy?

Look up "argument from authority". It's a logical fallacy. Actually, there are several fallacies in that text block.

Arguments on fallacies tend not to be very convincing to me.

Dashofpepper wrote:
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.

Dashofpepper wrote:
There *are* no L9 or L10 skill folks jumping in here to disagree with me, because what I write is correct.

Okay, so either I am in the bracket, in which case, I have been in the opposite camp for days (and, I might add, - I didn't join in to "snipe" at you) - in which case your prior comment is just wrong (I am here, as a L9 or 10 player, and I am disagreeing with you). Or you're saying that I'm not worthy to speak on this bracket that you mention...

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'm not sniping at you. I disagree with you. When you feel the need to invoke Arguments by Authority, the only way to address such arguments is to question the authority. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. I acknowledge that you understand that luck exists and don't need to question that. I know, when I play a game, what my mistakes are, and what their mistakes are. I know when I have won a game due to exploiting an opponent's mistake. (and also when the dice have forsaken my attempt to exploit such). I also know when I have made a mistake, and hope that my opponent has not noticed it as well.

But, I play more games against people I consider 'top' opponents where neither of us make a crucial mistake. Where games are decided by how the dice fall. Maybe you're not finding enough opponents playing at your level to be seeing this effect. If you're better than them, enough so to win the game in spite of awful dice, then they're clearly not playing at your level. And, when you post stories where a game you played against a top opponent came down to a single d6 roll - well, that doesn't exactly back your position. That's two highly skilled opponents playing at the game's top level - and watching as their skills countered each other.

But, if both players really are playing their top game, what does decide the game, if not luck? If neither play makes a critical mistake, why does one win and one lose (or, perhaps they don't, perhaps they tie)

"40k is a competitive game between two players. Just looking at your own skill level in a vacuum isn't useful. Yes, as you get better, you can punish your opponent for their mistakes (which, remember is defined as luck causing risks to fail). At the same time, as your opponent gets better, they can mitigate their mistakes better. Thus, skill cancels out skill, the closer that the two opponent's skill levels get. "

This is still wrong, imo. This is a turn based, I go you go game. Once you've made the mistake, you've comitted to it. You can't completely "undo" it by trying to mitigate your mistakes later.

What's scary, is that both of us at equal skill can punish mistakes harshly...so really it comes down to who makes the fewest mistakes, assuming equal skill at the highest level.

The problem with your assumption is that you assume equal skill to mean we make the same number or type of mistakes. This is distinctly impossible in 40k because it is a turn based system. Someone always messes up first before the other player. On top of that, like I said before, position means more than anythng, and position is not random

scuddman wrote: This is a turn based, I go you go game.

Which just makes who goes first (determined by luck) that much more important.

scuddman wrote:Once you've made the mistake, you've comitted to it. You can't completely "undo" it by trying to mitigate your mistakes later

So, you're arguing that mitigating bad luck does NOT fall under the realm of skill?

Mitigating bad luck is distinctly different from a mistake.

It's not who goes first, it's who MESSES UP first. Truth be told, I prefer to go second for this reason.

scuddman wrote:
Aren't we really just saying the same thing? I'm just trying to use Ailaros's assumptions to show why his model doesn't make complete sense. Nobody is saying luck isn't a factor. What Ailaro's is saying is that at high level, luck is the ONLY factor...and that's what we're trying to disprove.

My understanding is that Ailaros is disappointed because of what he perceives as 40K's lack of depth.
That investing in his skills has diminishing returns.

If he's right, then compared to other games, high level 40K players (say top 5% percent) will have a higher chance of losing against weaker players (say top 20-25%). Let's say they would win only 70% of the matches instead of 95+% which you would expect in chess or go.

scuddman wrote:Mitigating bad luck is distinctly different from a mistake.

It's not who goes first, it's who MESSES UP first. Truth be told, I prefer to go second for this reason.

Okay, but is mitigation of the results of taking calculated risks wherein you failed because of the particular die roll a matter of skill, or isn't it?

It is possible for mitigation to be skill, luck, or a combination of both.

I guess I'll also point out again that I'm of the opinion that so many dice are rolled throughout the game that the rolls overall will tend to normal distribution.

In the above event of the farseer, the tactic of the warlock power greatly mitigates bad luck. This is skill based.
In the event of failing leadership 10 twice, this event is completely luck based. However, your odds are 1/144, so less than 1 percent. Your mitigation makes this luck even essentially trivial..but I would be wrong to say it's not there.

scuddman wrote:It is possible for mitigation to be skill, luck, or a combination of both.

So then what does mitigation (by this definition) have to say about the OP theory?

Mitigating mistakes does not neccesarily have to happen by undoing it. You can mitigate later in your turn, if you notice the mistake you have made, attempting to compensate for the mistake by the movement and fire of other units. You can mitigate your mistake in subsequent turns, by either taking action with the unit you made the mistake with, or with other units. You can even mitigate for a mistake before you've made it, by playing with your mind on what happens if your plan doesn't work, or if you have poor luck. Any good player should be doing all of these things. If you are not, and your opponent is, then again you are not of equal skill levels.

While normally true, this isn't so at high levels. Small mistakes can be critical errors.

Let me use math terminology to illustrate.
As the level increases towards infinity, mistakes increase towards critical. At infinite level, the smallest mistake is still critical. At zero level, regardless of the mistake, it is NEVER critical.

scuddman wrote:As the level increases towards infinity, mistakes increase towards critical. At infinite level, the smallest mistake is still critical. At zero level, regardless of the mistake, it is NEVER critical.

Sure, but use my definition of mistake, and you get my theory.

A mistake is simply a person making a calculated risk (all decisions in 40k are calculated risks, because the success or failure is based on dice), and that calculated risk failed (once again, because of die rolls).

Replace "mistake" with "result of die rolls" and you get exactly what I'm talking about in the OP, well, except for what your model has when you hit infinity.

So then what does mitigation (by this definition) have to say about the OP theory?

Mitigation can be skill, luck, or a combination.
I contend at the highest level of skill, skill is greater than luck.

I use these premises:
1. The odds gained by mitigation from skill are always greater than those of luck. (Rerolling leadership, for example, and is not random)
3. Mistakes at the highest level are critical.
4. Bad luck may or may not be critical.
5. Bad luck and mistakes can be mitigated, but mitigation cannot completely undo bad luck or mistakes. Therefore luck will always play a role.
6. Because mistakes are critical, the first person to make a mistake gives his opponent a huge advantage.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

A mistake is simply a person making a calculated risk (all decisions in 40k are calculated risks, because the success or failure is based on dice), and that calculated risk failed (once again, because of die rolls).

This statement can't be true. Movement is not based on die rolls. It is possible to make a mistake with movement. Therefore, a mistake cannot necessarily be because of die rolls.

Ailaros wrote:

scuddman wrote:
Look up "argument from authority". It's a logical fallacy. Actually, there are several fallacies in that text block.

Arguments on fallacies tend not to be very convincing to me.

You're 100% right. Logical Fallacies don't lend towards winning an argument.

The problem here: The Gestalt that he's describing exists. I can only say "yep, sure does" because I've been there, and seen it, experienced it. It's sort of like Michael Jordan saying the game "slows down around him, and he felt like he was watching things in slow-motion" or Wayne Gretzky suggesting the "net was just bigger". I can only suggest that you see the game completely differnetly once get to the point he's talking about.

While normally true, this isn't so at high levels. Small mistakes can be critical errors.

Let me use math terminology to illustrate.
As the level increases towards infinity, mistakes increase towards critical. At infinite level, the smallest mistake is still critical. At zero level, regardless of the mistake, it is NEVER critical.

I suppose this depends on you define a small mistake. Leaving one squad slightly out of position is what I would call a small mistake. Perhaps their field of fire is not quite as good as it could be, and you've left something uncovered. This is unlikely to by itself, decide the outcome of the game. It gives at best a small advantage to the opponent. Largely because things like movement, firepower, etc all have upper limits in the game. No matter how good a player you are, you aren't going to be able to hide all your units inside the small blind spot your opponent has left. They wont all be close enough to move into it. (Or if they are, then your opponent has made a huge, glaring mistake, not a small one!). Futher more, if your opponent then fails to correct the problem next turn, either due to completely failing to spot it, or else by not having the means to do so, we can allready see at this point, that he is infact NOT as skilled at the game as you are.

Allowing your enemy a small advantage in movement, or a very slight edge in local fire superiority might well allow them to go on to with the game if there were no other factors coming into play. However, in 40k there IS another factor that can have a huge impact on gameplay. Luck. The impact that small advantage you have allowed your opponent by poor positioning of your units is overshadowed by the HUGE advantage some good or bad dicerolling can give. That small advantage wont wipe an entire unit off the field of play in the space of a single turn. (If it did, it would by definition not be a small mistake). A single good throw of the dice CAN wipe an entire unit, or even several units out. The difference in impact between these two events is huge, and far more likely to decide the victor than that small error in unit positioning.

scuddman wrote:This statement can't be true. Movement is not based on die rolls. It is possible to make a mistake with movement. Therefore, a mistake cannot necessarily be because of die rolls.

The RESULTS are based on die rolls.

You can move a vehicle in a certain way which carries certain risks of reward and certain risks of failure, or you can move a vehicle in a different way that has different risks of reward and different risks of failure. Which set of risks you chose to take is not based on luck (I'd argue, in fact, it's based on skill).

The RESULTS of the risks you chose to take are determined by die rolls, and nothing else.

For example, moving a unit into range allows you the chance to shoot at a unit, but just moving your unit does not mean that the opponent's unit is destroyed. The dice determine that. You only increased your odds from 0 to something greater by moving into range.

I'm not saying that Ailaros is necessarily wrong. I think he's more right than wrong. I just don't agree with his assessment at high level. Since so few of us approach it, it's is exceptionally difficult to fully analyze it.

It intuitively makes sense, but once again, it doesn't fully match up to reality. If what he says is so, then there should be more variance amongst tournament players.

There are things like, What is equal skill? Is it possible to have equal skill? I'd say at best it works like an economic model, but it's not robust enough, imo.

Although honestly, I don't think it greatly changes things. I find people inherently make snap decisions about competitive things, so we're really arguing semantics


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The RESULTS are based on die rolls.

You can move a vehicle in a certain way which carries certain risks of reward and certain risks of failure, or you can move a vehicle in a different way that has different risks of reward and different risks of failure. Which set of risks you chose to take is not based on luck (I'd argue, in fact, it's based on skill).

The RESULTS of the risks you chose to take are determined by die rolls, and nothing else.

For example, moving a unit into range allows you the chance to shoot at a unit, but just moving your unit does not mean that the opponent's unit is destroyed. The dice determine that. You only increased your odds from 0 to something greater by moving into range.

This also cannot be true because of objective missions. It is possible to obtain or contest an objective without rolling dice, hence winning/losing/drawing the game.

Ailaros wrote:

scuddman wrote:As the level increases towards infinity, mistakes increase towards critical. At infinite level, the smallest mistake is still critical. At zero level, regardless of the mistake, it is NEVER critical.

Sure, but use my definition of mistake, and you get my theory.

A mistake is simply a person making a calculated risk (all decisions in 40k are calculated risks, because the success or failure is based on dice), and that calculated risk failed (once again, because of die rolls).

Replace "mistake" with "result of die rolls" and you get exactly what I'm talking about in the OP, well, except for what your model has when you hit infinity.

As a neutral observer of this thread, I just want to reiterate this statement made by Ailaros. It seems to make the most sense out of anything said in this 10 page argument.

And yet one of the few statements in this thread that is demonstrably false, thanks to the miracle of diceless movement.

scuddman wrote:I'm not saying that Ailaros is necessarily wrong. I think he's more right than wrong. I just don't agree with his assessment at high level. Since so few of us approach it, it's is exceptionally difficult to fully analyze it.

My theory actually deals mostly with equality of skill level, not with the actual height of the skill level. It works just as well for crappy 40k players as it does for good ones.

My only ancillary point to this theory is that it's harder to get better the better you get, and the closer you get to the limit with controllable factors, the more that uncontrollable ones matter.

scuddman wrote:It intuitively makes sense, but once again, it doesn't fully match up to reality. If what he says is so, then there should be more variance amongst tournament players.

Or the people who win tournaments are much better than the people they beat to get to the top. I don't think that's such a rash statement. Likewise, they could win tournaments by luck.

scuddman wrote:There are things like, What is equal skill? Is it possible to have equal skill? I'd say at best it works like an economic model, but it's not robust enough, imo.

My model deals with APPROACHING equal skill. You don't need to actually know what the limit of equal skill is for the model to work.

scuddman wrote:This also cannot be true because of objective missions. It is possible to obtain or contest an objective without rolling dice, hence winning/losing/drawing the game.

You can not win a game with objectives without killing stuff, and, as killing stuff requires die rolls, objective missions are also dependent on luck. That, or you're playing between two GROSSLY dissimilarly skilled players ("I move my troops unit onto your objective" followed by the other player being like "Oh, I'm sorry, let me move my own units off of there for you").

Nurglitch wrote:And yet one of the few statements in this thread that is demonstrably false, thanks to the miracle of diceless movement.

Well, sure, use a random number generator instead. It's still a matter of luck.

--A mistake is simply a person making a calculated risk (all decisions in 40k are calculated risks, because the success or failure is based on dice), and that calculated risk failed (once again, because of die rolls).

What if the person making the mistake doesn't know it's a mistake? It can't be a calculated risk without understanding the risk.
I think that assessment is wrong.

No, movement is 6" for Infantry, 12" for Jump Infantry, and so on. Sorry, your statement still fails to be true.

scubasteve04 wrote:
A mistake is simply a person making a calculated risk (all decisions in 40k are calculated risks, because the success or failure is based on dice), and that calculated risk failed (once again, because of die rolls).

As a neutral observer of this thread, I just want to reiterate this statement made by Ailaros. It seems to make the most sense out of anything said in this 10 page argument.

Dash,

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with what you've said in that skill is generally a bigger determinate of competitive games than luck. People way too often call a something "unlucky dice" when it was a tactical error (i.e. skill). However, I think at higher skill levels, where fewer mistakes are made, the game is determined by a much higher / significant degree of luck. Skill is certainly still a factor, but luck plays a major part.

Here is a quote from you from a thread you started titled "What do you do if your army has a hard counter"

"My problem is that at BEST, in the BEST scenario, with me going first, and good dice rolls, its going to be an uphill fight to take down a Mech IG opponent. There are varying levels below that until we get to "auto-lose."

I played against a Mech IG opponent yesterday in a tournament - I won the roll to go first; we each deployed, and then he stole the initiative....that's an "auto-lose" scenario. With my units on the board getting shot up, I lost half my vehicles in his first turn, and half of the units inside each (with their T3, 5+). Even reserving everything though is relying on incredible luck with the dice to pull off flat-out cover saves until getting into range....."

You admit yourself that getting the initiative seized on you by a guard player is pretty much auto lose. A 1/6 chance determining much of the game (obviously you can still win, but my argument is that luck plays a very significant factor, more than you are giving it credit for, at higher skill levels). Additionally, you flat out say that even if you reserve, you need "incredible luck."

I think what's missing is that when you play someone who is below you in skill, "bad luck" is masked by the gain when your opponent makes downright poor tactical plays. When you get to more equal skill and people aren't really making mistakes, there is a significantly higher chance that the person whose dice roll better first is going to win. Your quote above is a perfect example. There, having significantly higher skill than your opponent will still allow you to win the game. But when you get closer to equal skill, luck plays a pretty significant role (i.e. pretty much "auto-losing" if the initiative is seized or depending on reserve rolls / flat out cover saves to keep you alive long enough to have a chance.)

Part of your above quote is in regards to matchups. Matchups in tournaments are determined randomly and can have a HUGE influence on your chance of winning the game (DE vs. Mech IG). In a 5 game tournament, luck of with matchups certainly plays a large part in the likelihood you'll go undefeated. Not skill, but luck. I think any hardened tourney vet, myself included, would agree. Skill will certainly lead you most of the way to victory, but I think you're overlooking how much luck plays into it at higher levels.

Redbeard wrote:


But, I play more games against people I consider 'top' opponents where neither of us make a crucial mistake. Where games are decided by how the dice fall. Maybe you're not finding enough opponents playing at your level to be seeing this effect. If you're better than them, enough so to win the game in spite of awful dice, then they're clearly not playing at your level. And, when you post stories where a game you played against a top opponent came down to a single d6 roll - well, that doesn't exactly back your position. That's two highly skilled opponents playing at the game's top level - and watching as their skills countered each other.

But, if both players really are playing their top game, what does decide the game, if not luck? If neither play makes a critical mistake, why does one win and one lose (or, perhaps they don't, perhaps they tie)

Two things then.

1. You're taking my anecdote out of context. I said that I had a game that came down to a single D6 roll BECAUSE of the mistakes I had made - which has been my issue all along; luck only factors significantly into your game when you force it to. Which is again - my whole point here, that the OP's theory of luck at top-level gaming is flawed.

2. Critical mistakes - lets take out the critical and just leave it at mistakes. I'm not sure anyone has ever played a perfect game. I'm not talking about the kind where you table your opponent and lose nothing in return; I've done that occassionally myself; I'm talking where at the end of the game, there is not a single move, not a single target priority, not a single pile in move, or ANYTHING that you couldn't have done better. When you're pitting extremely skilled gamers against each other, its the minor mistakes that cost the game, not the critical ones. The game you're referencing that boiled down to a D6....I was playing Orks. I moved one of my battlewagons a SMIDGEN too far beyond my KFF range, and it was suddenly an open target. As my KFF is trekking around on foot, I ran him away from the close combat Mark had in mind for me. I didn't get far enough away, and on the last turn, Mark got to move, fleet and assault my KFF Big Mek - removing my control of the table quarter, and also putting him into that table quarter (or on the line of it) - so that the game was decided by a D6 - was he in that table quarter or the other one? I lost the die roll and lost the game. If I hadn't put my KFF into that table quarter, he wouldn't have been able to get to it to make that D6 roll important.

Ragnar4 wrote:
What if the person making the mistake doesn't know it's a mistake? It can't be a calculated risk without understanding the risk.
I think that assessment is wrong.

It may not be calculated, but risk is still inherent and whether you acknowledge/understand that risk or not, it exists.

This is an aspect of finance that has demonstrably proven itself in the past few years.

Those who invested in Madoff's fund, for example, bore all the risk of his eventual default, even though all the quantifiable measures pointed to the opposite.

Being oblivious to inherent risk makes you no less vulnerable to risk, and actually quite the opposite if that obliviousness results in a lack of management of risk.

Nurglitch wrote:And yet one of the few statements in this thread that is demonstrably false, thanks to the miracle of diceless movement.

That is not 100% correct, because even though there are diceless events (as you have pointed out) like movement, these events are still tied together with other events (shooting, assault, ect). You may move a unit in range to fire, they flub their shots, and get assaulted and killed in return, that move was a (failed) calculated risk.

All events in the game, wether dice rolled or not are inter-mingled, and their success or failure can still be linked at some point to dice rolls.