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.

Watching a good player play games is like watching a boarder collie herding sheeps.

I think that yes, better players will tend to win more consistently, but in many ways, I go with the "Any given Sunday" view of 40k. There are so many variables, that any player/army can take any just about any other player/army in a single game. With the small number of games played in most tournaments, a big portion of who wins comes down to things like scenarios, matchups, and sometimes just straight up luck.

I know the tournaments where I've placed high, I've felt like the stars aligned and I had a lot of things going my way. I caught matchups I could handle and in the right scenarios and had a few dice rolls go my way. I've even managed to beat players with much more expereince than me simply because I happened to play them in a scenario that gave me the advantage, I won the roll to choose who goes first, or I had a single hot set of rolls go my way. Does that make me better than them... hell no. In the very next game I played against them, they beat me like a salvation army drum.

I do think that your top tier players can pull wins out where less-skilled players would get tabled. Their skill also means that when things are going their way in either a game or tournament, they are able to capitialize on those openings and don't let chances slip away.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that given equal opportunities, the more skilled players with better lists will win out. However, from my limited experiences with tournaments, it seems that opportunities, matchups, and luck are far from equal. You can be the best player in the world, but if you draw your kryptonite matchup in the final round and only pull out a minor/major win, that can put you behind the lucky schlub who managed to pull 3 favorable matchups which all led to massacres for him.

Well my two cents, I think 40k is closest to NASCAR. For those of you from Europe this is driving in circles for hours on end. Luck has a huge part of luck in that sport; a caution at the right time, a blown tire or part failure, or weather could have a huge impact on a race, and these things are out of your control sort of like the dice.

The teams that consistently run up front or win do it many ways; good drivers, good pit crews, good equipment, or good crew cheifs. Players who win consistently are the same way; good lists, good set-up, getting good matchups on the table, making good descisions. Now on any Sunday any car could win. Just like at a tourney any player could win. The people who rise to the top are always in the hunt and making good decisions.

The champion of a NASCAR season is who can consistenly run up front and finish, on average, the best for whatever reason; driver, crew cheif, etc.. Good 40k players are the same way, they are always at the top of the list at tourneys, rarley get stomped, and keep themselves in the game until the bitter end.

Now is there anything specific to make a good player, NO. They need a combination of a lot of things, many of the things people have listed on this thread. If there was a way to take the top 100 players from around the country errr...world (just a guess but Im guessing thats about how many people are on an even skill level at the top of the game) and have them play all 99 other people and compare records, you will find who the top 5-10 players are. I wish there was a way to do this but it is unfeasable right now.

I know who the better players are in my area and they usually finish near the top in any league or tournament we have. Now does this mean the top players win every game, no, they lose like everyone else, but not nearly as often. Is it something tangible you can put your finger on, I say no. It is a combination of infinate amounts of variables that go into a game and they find a way to put the odds in their favor.

Now Im fairly new to the game so you can dismiss my opinion, thats fine with me but I think 40k is most like NASCAR. THe better players time after time find their way to the top of the list and its for being good at a multitude of things.

I think when you look at the way 40k works there is an amount of luck. But that luck evens out over time. There are people at my LGS I have never lost too, period. There are people I have only lost to when running a thrown together list and wasnt paying any attention to the game. There are people that I beat most of the time. But overall it averages out. People can win events due to some luck, but the best players are those who almost always place at the very top. And thats what its about, evening out the odds so you have a fair chance of winning over anyone else. One of the reasons I play mech eldar, is that their biggest strengths are the ability to reserve everything and get to where they need to be. This means I can normally dictate the pace of the battle.

Finally I think theres a whats the biggest threat overall. I might forgo shooting a combat squad with rocket in order to pop a rhino. While that means I may lose a transport next turn it also means towards the end of the game the opponent is less mobile. And you always want to force what they do.

I think there are only a couple of things that a player can control to increase their chances of winning a game.

Solid list building is obvious.

Knowing basic odds. You don't have to be a math genius or run complex spreadsheets. Just know basic odds. This will increase your odds of getting 'lucky' and minimize 'bad luck'.

Seizing upon an opponent's mistake. You must be able to see bad deployments, bad movements, etc. made by your opponent.

Prioritizing threats and acting decisively. This is achieved by one thing that is imperative that players do.

Table time. Then some more table time. Then lots more table time.

It is true that 40k has a large aspect of luck, and that one can only be soo at 40k. Even if you build a really stacked list, its still a dice game.
That being said, in just my few years of experience I have seen some people who really knew what they were doing. I was very skeptical at first, but I believe this game is much more tactical than people give it credit for.

I think theres a sort of instinctive feel to it after a while. Like the better you get the less you really know about it. If that makes sense. You just instinctively avoid making certain moves and forget about those mistakes to the point where you cant give others advice on it.

No, there you are wrong. If you played the best poker player in the world and you are a nobody and he has 4 hours, he will always take your money. And I mean always. If you don't believe me, come to LA and I have a top poker player for you to play that's a friend of mine.

If you only play 10 hands, that's different. That's not enough hands. You give a top poker player 4 hours and he will eventually get what he wants. Poker is a setup game. Winning a single hand is meaningless. You can win 10 hands and I can win 1 and I'm the guy who has all your money. You can't think of poker hands as winning or losing. That's not what it's about. In fact, the lose 10 hands, win 1 but take all your money is almost like a perfect setup.

Oh, about the measuring thing. It's a trained ability, and it's not random. In competitive video game play, you have frames per second to judge distances, and the difference between success and failure is measured in pixels. Judging the distance between two points when I have all the time in the world is not hard. Consider on top you use a measuring tape to move...yeah it's too easy.

I'm not gonna explain why it gives me a huge advantage, but it's definitely better with armies that can move and shoot, like oblits or eldar or landspeeders.

It's not the only thing. Combining ability with concept knowledge is huge. You saw what I said about power fists and power weapons? You ever use that concept in your games? How about other players? If you're clever you can completely neutralize even terminators all with power fists. Don't tell me you've never faced a power fist...

Here's something you can do...in chess we called it a kifu, but after a game, sit down and make a turn by turn analysis of your moves. I've watched games where at the end the loser complained it was his dice when it wasn't. In fact, I'll say the vast majority of the time it's not the dice, but you don't really pick up on it unless someone watching points out the things you did wrong that were critical errors.

If you have trouble remembering your games, have a friend "spot" your game for you and take note of the things you did right and the things you did wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sure they do... People are always very aware that (for example), a Chimera can drive 12", disembark 2", and then Melta out to 6", making 20" a magic number... I'm constantly aware of the "bands" of range on the table, and trying to be in the right space for a bike, or a Chimera, or counter charge infantry, or whatever.

An example of this, and how I put myself in a bad spot: I was playing a guy who was fielding Shrike. He won the roll to choose turn, stayed in reserve and made me go first with my Drop Pod list (no surprise). So I dropped on an objective, and then disembarked/ran to where I thought I was about 20" from the table edge. I had forgotten that Shrike gives Fleet. He assaulted me turn 1.

So, point being, I estimated the distance just fine, was well aware of the distances I needed to maintain, I just forgot that Shrike gave him Fleet, and that cost me.

Meh, there's a lot more to this than distance estimation. Half of the equation is the other guy's movements, and in many cases you're forced to not move in order to do what you need to do, so it's not just a matter of choosing to be 19" away, or what have you.

It's certainly a great skill to have, but it doesn't give you any extra range, or let you move when you can't, etc.

That's blatantly untrue. First of all, if I KNOW I'm in range or not for something and my opponent doesn't, I can make a better decision can't I? I can also move to make his life difficult by deliberately towing the line. I know what's in charge range and what isn't always, so I never run into the above problem (cutting mistakes is a whole 'nother topic and just as important). However, the players that are moderetely good at it just move to 20" away. It's too obvious in that case. I move to 18.5, clearly out, but not obvious without this ability. It LOOKS like it might be in range, but it actually isn't. That's a huge psychological trap. When my devestators are 37" away from plasma cannons on the first turn, it LOOKS like it's in range but it isn't. I can get free misses because of the ability. At the very least, it makes my opponents think about it alot, which I want. When they're unsure what the right decision is, I make their life difficult. It's an absolute mind screw when people do know I have the ability, because I'll deliberately put stuff out into the open in range and people won't shoot at them. They'll think I'm baiting them...

I actually stole this idea of messing with someone's mind by John Choi. I remember watching one street fighter match where he dominated the first round. With his life lead, he deliberately jumped in on his opponent and got hit on purpose several times before finishing the fight. The second round wound up being close and he lost on purpose doing the same thing. In the last round he did a technique called a "safe" jump at a critical point in the match, where at the proper distance the jump in can't be uppercutted yet the jump in will hit. As a long time player I recognized what had happened, but it was obvious to me that John's opponent had no idea what had happened. He thought it was "luck". I'll never forget that. He could have done that to his opponent all night long and he would never realize what was really going on.

This is what I'm talking about at 5:48 in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8dD3K2_Pz4

So like I said, I guess we will have to disagree. You seem pretty stuck on the fact that in your area you don't see it, but I've experienced it enough that I have little doubt.

I'm not sure if it's me you're disagreeing with, but I certainly didn't mean to say that I don't think there are bad, average, good and great players. There certainly are skill levels, and better players will win a lot of games.

Your experience with your wife's play is exactly how I picture the game working, particularly how she can now win a couple games off of you, even though you're vastly more experienced.

So I see a lot of what you're saying. What I don't see are players who are just AMAZING, and are making moves that blow my mind, amaze me with their brilliance.

What I also don't see is the level of stratification that some people see. For example, I hear a lot of "I'm a pretty good player, and the best player I know is my friend Clyde, and this guy came into the store and beat Clyde twice without losing a single model!" I don't track how that's possible. If you're a pretty good player, and your friend is better still, then there's nobody THAT much better than him.

I feel this way because of the element of chance. In a game of 40K, some of what determines victory is the choices you make, and some of it is chance. When you break it down, there just aren't THAT many choices to make in the game. If you've got 10 units in your army, and 6 turns, and three phases, that's about 180 choices. It seems to me that an experienced player will make the best choice often enough (and so will his opponent), that the role of chance becomes more and more of a factor. With good enough players, all that's left is chance. There's no room to make even better choices. You can only shoot your Obliterator at the right target... You can't be so awesome that the Obliterator just turns into ten Obliterators and they go on a shooting spree.

If you played the best poker player in the world and you are a nobody and he has 4 hours, he will always take your money.

Could be, I'm not really a poker player. When I play, I win, but I don't play much, and I don't play good players. I just chose 4 hours out of the air, because it seemed like a reasonably long period of time, roughly equivalent to a single basketball game.

All I can tell you is that nobodies win the WSOP, or at least get to the last table, quite often. I'm sure they're better poker players than I am, but they're not pros.

Regardless, I stand by my original point, which is that the more chance is a factor in the game, the more opportunity there is for a lesser player to win, and the distinction between a good player and a great player is less obvious.

You saw what I said about power fists and power weapons? You ever use that concept in your games?

Yes I saw, no I don't use it. Two reasons: First is that I want a Power Fist because its a threat to vehicles, and it protects the unit from big stuff like TMCs, etc. The PW makes them incrementally better at killing something they're already decent at killing. The Fist fundamentally changes what they can threaten. Second reason is that it doesn't actually work like you're suggesting. Both Power Weapons and Power Fists are "hidden" on models in a unit. You can't just snipe off the Power Fist with the Power Weapon and a better initiative step... You have to kill off the unit to get to the Fist, and in most situations the Fist will be killing off the Power Weapon's squad faster than the Power Weapon is killing off the Fist's squad.

MEqs vs MEqs:
PF Sarge: 2A, 1 Hit, .833 Dead
PW Sarge: 3A, 1.5 Hit, .75 Dead

The Fist is more likely to kill off the Power Weapon than vice versa.

That's blatantly untrue. First of all, if I KNOW I'm in range or not for something and my opponent doesn't, I can make a better decision can't I?

What's blatantly untrue?

As I already said, having flawless awareness of all ranges in the game, all the time, is very useful. However, even if you have that going for you, it doesn't mean you can move and shoot a Devestator, or suddenly teleport out of range of a Battle Cannon. My point was to say that having good estimation skills doesn't mean you're "always in range." I don't care how good you are at estimating 24", if you're 33" away, you're 33" away. And vice versa, I don't care how good you are at estimating 48" if you're 33" away...

No question it's a useful skill, but it's only useful in borderline situations, which, while they happen every game, are far from "always."

Plus I'd have to see this amazing talent in practice to put much stock in it.

frequently, during long games, my tac squads will be whittled down to just a sarge and a special weapon. at that point, a powerfist is basically useless, because it will almost always be dead before it swings. however, a power sword never looses its utility, because it doesn't require you to sacrifice models to allow it to hit.

I normally put power swords on my units that are going to fight infantry... and fists on those that I know are tank hunting. both have a place.

the only time I wouldn't use a sword ever is in the case of a biker marine sarge, or a sternguard sarge. in both cases, you won't get the 2 CCW bonus from a sword, making the fist a better choice vs infantry.

You're missing the concept. Nothing is always better than something else. There are situations where it has weakpoints. The power fist is only truly better when it is hidden, and there are ways around it.

Understanding how to use this concept is how good players win with subpar units.

You do not have to kill off a unit to get to the fist. Although, the less models left in a squad, the easier it is to do.

Like I said, it's hard to setup, but understanding the concept means you can exploit it if the situation comes up, and it comes up pretty much every game.

Edit: Horst gets it.

at that point, a powerfist is basically useless, because it will almost always be dead before it swings. however, a power sword never looses its utility, because it doesn't require you to sacrifice models to allow it to hit.

It doesn't have a whole lot of utility when a Dreadnaught starts fighting your squad, or a TMC jumps in.

You're missing the concept. Nothing is always better than something else.

No, I'm not missing it, I just don't find it to be all that insightful/valid...

Clearly we all know that a Marine with a PW will kill a Marine with a PF if they go one on one.

And yes, we can all imagine situations where squads have been whittled down, where the PW might be a better option.

But taking a PW to hunt PFs, knowing that in order for it to work, the squads have to size out just right, whittle down at just the right pace, etc. etc. That's just trying too hard to be clever.

Just because it's obvious that a PFist does more for a squad than a PWeapon, that doesn't make it clever to NOT take a PFist.

You do not have to kill off a unit to get to the fist.

No, you don't, but the Fist is almost always going to be the last model to get a Power Weapon wound assigned to him, and thus pretty unlikely to actually die to a PWeapon wound unless he's the last model standing.

Here's what it comes down to: A PFist is an insurance policy against TMCs, walkers, Plague Marines, vehicles, and a variety of other big mean things that are all over the game, all the time.

By comparison, this "Power Weapon concept" is an insurance policy against the situation where two squads battle it out until there's exactly one Power Weapon against one Power Fist, and then you win out.

Is that something you're getting a lot of in your game? And by "a lot of" I mean "more than you see anything with an AV rating, or a T of 5+?"

Yeah... this discussion is getting side-tracked.

Because clearly you make all your armor saves...or I need a power weapon to kill the fist. Okay, <shrug> believe what you want.

As for the measuring thing..amazing talent? What?
Or is this a troll to get me to reveal more? It's not an amazing talent, any monkey can do it. I gurantee any carpenter can do it. Most architects could do it. Any top level street fighter player can do it. Plumbers could do it. Your average person doesn't need this skill so doesn't develop it. Heck, I'm certain you could do it.

Oh while I"m at it, power fist being any good against a venerable dreadnought or an ironclad is a myth in 5th. I have no fear charging tacticals with any armor value 12 walker. Unless you think 2 guardsman missile launcher shots are any good against an ironclad or a venerable. But I like this misconception, I hope it sticks around.

Did you watch the youtube video? You understand that the difference between a safe jump and a nonsafe jump is measured in pixels? Don't you think that is monumentally harder than figuring out the distance between two points on a static table? You realize the window to land your attack is 4/60 of a second (4 frames)?

Well, to quickly interject here. Everyone has pretty much whittled down the basic concepts of how to be a good player. List, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, deployment ect. What I've experienced with the Ork lists I play I can pretty much surmise the way a game will pan out. My assault turn and when I can effectively deliver a 'death-blow'. I usually decide how well I played, by what I was able to keep alive. That might be wrong, but one time against Tau, I won because I PK'd his Piranha. Last model I had killed his. Was this a Massacre? Hell no. I was lucky. But I digress. In my mind a good player can Win, minimalize losses, and be a good player to play against. Yeah sure you may be on top of the tournament latter, but if your an donkey-cave about it, it takes away from the point of the game, to have a good time.

List
Play
Sportsmanship

And besides I much rather have a good time and get curb stomped than win by exploiting the fabric of the system.
So if you can win, have an random matched up opponent happy to have played you, then your pretty good in my book.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you're trying to get out Scuddman...

Im no top notch tournament player, but I beat 95% of the people I play. And I can say that personally I never math hammer stuff out this much.

Pick unit
Does it have a useful role in the army, if yes add to list
In the case of tac marines put power fist in so they can beat up on more kinds of stuff, add opportunities to the army. If its eldar add upgrades that make it better at what it already does
Continue until army is built. Thats about it. I might drop units because they suck, but math hammer is a rarity. Need more help against raiders add more dragons. Smoke launchers are a bitch add crack shot exarch.

That's in reference to his opinion that being able to eyeball distances to within a quarter inch is an amazing talent.

All that talk spawned from my implication that the game doesn't fully evolve. And it shouldn't. I wouldn't want people to expect to learn how to premeasure with their eyes.

In essence it's a legal form of premeasuring.

If you were referring to the power fist thing, that's my usual example for talking about tactical differences. I often get the question, "Why shouldn't you take something that is always better?" My answer is that it's not always better, and that it's too easy to trivialize the difference. I always use the example of sergeant vs. sergeant, in which case the power weapon wins. The crafty players will extrapolate and understand the deeper meaning of what I'm trying to say. Now that I think of it, I very often get the same response that Phryxis was saying. I find if I spell out all the ways, people simply dismiss them as impossible or unlikely...even though such situations occur every game. If people come up with different solutions on their own, they naturally grow as players and often come back to me with ideas I hadn't thought of.

This is one of those cases where it didn't pan out. His origianl comment was that he didn't understand how "good" players could beat other players using top lists.
The ability to see other possibilities and find angles is key in defeating top tournament lists and coming up with innovative strategies. In fact, that's often how top strategies come to be developed. Without this sort of thought process and understanding, you wind up like John Choi's unlucky opponent. You think you're losing because it's luck.

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

Linking this page for list design stuff

Okay... that makes sense. I think that 40k isn't "fully competitive" or as you stated fully evolved. I do think that skill/experience is an important factor in determining who wins games/tournaments, but as I participate in more and more tournaments, I realize that it is far from the only factor. The small sample sizes (generally 3-5 games) makes things like matchups, scenarios, terrain, etc fairly important. Yes, skilled players can overcome/mitigate the effect these factors most of the time (through whatever one calls skill, whether it's new techniques/strategies, better range estimation, etc), but sometimes not so much. While I would argue that most of the time it's the best player with the best army who wins out, sometimes the underdog pulls off an upset (think the Browns over the Steelers) because those factors worked out in his favor. And frankly, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I agree essentially with Scuddman.

Phyxis asked for some examples so I'll give a few.

One time in a mission based on control of bunkers, my opponent--who was a really good player--forced me to blow up one of my own bunkers. He deepstruck a unit of crisis suits into the bunker (it was legal back then according to the rules, but I would never have thought of it in a million years) and if I hadn't shot and destroyed the bunker myself, he would have cut my army to pieces with JSJs for the rest of the game. I lost the game because of having lost that bunker.

In a later game against that same opponent, all I had to do to win the mission was drive a bunch of Eldar skimmers (with star engines!) across the board 48" and exit the other side. He had a totally ordinary foot Tau army. I still have no clue how he beat me in that one.

When I was first starting out, in the days when rhino rush was king, I played against a really good player who had a space marine foot horde that appeared to be really weak. So I drove my chaos rhino rush army out into the board and was tabled in less than 3 turns. I don't remember killing any of his models. This guy went on with that army--which was totally unlike what everybody else was playing at the time--and won at least one Baltimore GT overall (maybe more than one?). A lot of players tried to imitate the army, but nobody could really get it to work the way he did.

Back when tri-falcon harlequins ruled, I played a game against a really good player's necron destroyer force. I had watched him play that army for awhile and was pretty sure I knew his tactics, and he was actually surprised when my assault transports were in his face at the top of turn 2 (with star engines, which we used back then). But somehow he saw right away that all my assault troops were transported--with nothing like shining spears that could move more than 6" + fleet and assault in the same turn. So he instantly and seamlessly changed all his tactics and started boosting his destroyers around the board, picking off my skimmers one at a time. I lost--had never noticed the weakness in my army before.

That's only a few examples off the top of my head where my uber lists and programmed tactics were total fail against players who were able to exploit what was happening on the board in that specific situation and use things I would never notice to beat me. I can think of a couple dozen more examples that are less helpful because I still have no clue how the opponent beat me--just used terrain and movement and units I thought were weak to do things I didn't think they could do.

Being both a keen basketballer as well as a gamer, I'll relate the two for you.

In basketball, when you take a freethrow, if you beleive in the shot, with a little know how, it will generally go in.

Based behind this, if you know when to charge headlong in, and know when the casualties you take will be worth the kills you make, and to have confidence in this decision, generally, your morale will be up, and that, in some weird way makes your dice roll well.

Trust me, I rely on this!

I'm not a terribly great gamer, but if it's possible, and you think your guys have it in them, it'll generally do it for you.

But, then the most experienced players can be beaten by pure novices.

Alas, this game is as much luck as it is tactics.

Your luck and your tactics are entwined by your beleif that you'll win.

My opinion.

there are people out there who I have played 10 times, and won all 10 times against... sometimes without loosing a single unit. (take casualties, sure, but no fully lost units)

its not like he doesn't know the rules for his army... he does OK against other people his play level, but he's never beaten me...

and yet, there is another guy at my LGS who plays marines... i've beaten him ONCE in 5+ games i've played against him.

Manchu wrote:I tend to agree with OP. I think 40k is intentionally written to keep the playing field as flat as possible so that, all other things being equal*, new comers are just as likely to win as old hands. That would be, after all, the best marketing strategy (braces for flaming). If you notice, the people who seem to hate GW rules the most are the more competitive players. All the talk about skill seems like 90% ego-masturbation, 10% truth to me.

That's an incredibly narrow view you're taking there Manchu. I can't help but wonder if you have no skill at all to be willing to make a bold statement like that.

Do you know why I *know* skill matters? There are a series of players scattered across....everywhere. Every time I play one of them, regardless of what army I'm using or what army they are using....EVERY game we play is a difficult game. I get challenged, I need to carefully consider the game, where its progressing, where I can create an opportunity to exploit...every single game.

I don't feel that way about most gamers, and most games I play are tournament based, and are yawntastic requirements just so that I can GET to the people who challenge me; those are the victories I strive for - to feel rewarded after hard work, to have had a hard fought battle against a SKILLED opponent and to come away having won - those are the games that make 40k worthwhile to me.

Competitive players hate the 40k rules the most because so many things are unclear, need clarification, countermand each other, or break other rules. Its hard to have an accepted system of gaming when there's so many things wrong with the basic ruleset. I don't know if you're a new 40k player, or an old-hand that simply hasn't had the opportunity to play against anyone skilled who will play a game with you ten times in a row and thrash you ten times in a row. Either way, I think you're making too strong of a statement.

I do believe there are good players and while at some level it can be developed for some the light comes on earlier.
I think there are two types of things that go into it - inner and outer strengths.

Outer:

1. The local environment - what kind of terrain does this venue have? What are the prevalent armies?
2. The list - based on the environment, does the list have few weaknesses. Does it maximize the codex? Is it flexible or a one-trick wonder.
3. The style - Are you playing an army that fits your style? Mobile, HTH oriented, shootie, small elite, hoard.

Inner:
1. Deployment situational awareness - sometimes obvious but sometimes subtle. Where should those pathfinders go? Should my termies walk on or deep strike?
2. Opponent awareness - Do you know your opponent's preference and style? What b does his list say about probable style? Knowing how to counter his tendencies before the game even starts.
3. Situational awareness/timing - Should my assault marines move to the assault now or should they hold back? Should my predator go stationary or should I position it for next turn.

The final element is luck and luck is a bigger element the more you count on it. Play a Deathwing army and roll a high number of 1's and I don't care how good you are... The larger your base of dice/figures/tanks the less susceptible to luck you are as the dice will average out.

The outer things are pretty easy and most people naturally build to their area. Style is probably the last light that turns on - I have faced some pretty good lists and players but they were mismatched - the guy loves to mix it up in HTH but is playing a necron or tau list. He may have the best HTH performing Tau army but it is a definite mis-match of list and style.

What differentiates good players are the 3 inner qualities - deployment of the right unit in the right place, naturally reacting to your opponent's moves and proper timing.
While this is a skill that can be developed, this is where many players continue to struggle. They have all the outer qualities - good list that fits their style and the local environment but continue to make mistakes on those inner qualities. Finally as mentioned, there is luck, this is really a subset of situational awareness and some people can adjust to an early turn or two of bad dice rolls and still make there army compensate and outperform their opponent.

I think the answer is actually pretty simple. That highest caliber of player can be defined by two things - they don't make mistakes and they are hardly ever surprised.

Not making mistakes covers a lot of ground, but at applies at the root to the list build and physical game play. Top drawer players don't always use cookie cutter power lists, but you can be sure that when they put a list together there's a premium placed on synergy and cost effectiveness and that they're prepared to deal with most common power builds. In an actual game those players simply don't make deployment mistakes, they don't misjudge distances and they don't loose track of scenario objectives. Someone made a poker analogy earlier, and in this case it holds very true - the best poker players are the ones who don't make mistakes and don't give chips away betting on bad hands and tossing good chips after bad. The best 40K players are the same.

Those high caliber players are also hardly ever surprised. They're intimately familar with all the codexes and with all the common power builds and synergy matches in those codexes. They know what the best unit/army builds look like and they can read an opponents army at a glance. Not just about what units are what but where they're likely to be best deployed and how they're going to be used. From a situational perspective they know the math at least well enough to be able to tell quickly what the best option is in pretty much any case, both for their units and their opponent's. Essentially, the top drawer players are capable of playing your army opimally in their heads a turn or two in advance. The flip side of this is that this caliber of player will also know when you've made a mistake, or even a sub-optimal decision, and will understand how to capitalize on that mistake.

I don't put any stock in who's beaten who or in who hasn't lost a game in how long when it comes to identifying these guys either. I once went just shy of 3 years straight without losing a game of 40K at my local RT store, but didn't place well in a GT in the first two of those years (and didn't win one until after that stretch). W-L records at the local level mean nothing. W-L records at RTTs only mean slightly more than nothing unless you know that the caliber of guys who were there. IMO the only easily ranked info is results from major tournies - GTs, Adepticon, that sort of thing. Short of that I'd actually have to see a guy play before I'd be willing to call him a top drawer player. There's not really that many guys who make my list either. For example, I know most of the tourny regulars in Southern Ontario, and there's only maybe 6 or 8 guys I can think of that I'd seriously call high caliber in the way we're talking about here (and no, I'm not currently one of those guys, although I used to be).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I think a lot of people don't really analyze their games all that much. Obviously there is only so much you can do during a game. And if you dice suck, yes, you will probably lose.

However, having watched this happen (and it is very annoying) people don't even mathematically analyze their chances for different things. They just think, hey, that's the biggest threat, I'll shoot everything at it.

When instead they should be running numbers in their head and see what they will actually do to it, and if its worth the resources committed.

I see too many people just forget the math of the game and try and rely solely on tactics. Well tactics only go so far when your troops are plastic and there is no psychological effect of good tactics for the most part.

Timmah wrote:I think a lot of people don't really analyze their games all that much. Obviously there is only so much you can do during a game. And if you dice suck, yes, you will probably lose.

However, having watched this happen (and it is very annoying) people don't even mathematically analyze their chances for different things. They just think, hey, that's the biggest threat, I'll shoot everything at it.

When instead they should be running numbers in their head and see what they will actually do to it, and if its worth the resources committed.

I see too many people just forget the math of the game and try and rely solely on tactics. Well tactics only go so far when your troops are plastic and there is no psychological effect of good tactics for the most part.

I completely agree about the math - a lot of guys just don't pay enough attention to the likely outcome of their in-game decisions and it ends up hurting them in the W column. It comes down to whether or not a player can adequately assess the threats facing him and divvy up his firepower/CC in whatever way maximizes his chances of neutralizing those threats. Most players fall short in this area to some degree.

I think you might be selling the psychology side of the game a little short though. You're right to say that the tactics themselves don't affect the opponent's army the way you might think appropriate, but the psychology of your opponent is a huge factor in a lot of games. Not, mostly, against other top drawer players, but against pretty much everyone else for sure. There's all sorts of things you do to mess with people's tactics and decisions that have nothing to do with dice or game mechanics. It takes practice, but it pays huge dividends too. If you think of it like jedi mind tricks you'd be about right.

I find it funny when people complain about a particular dice roll, but when you do the math they actually rolled above average.

Timmah wrote:I find it funny when people complain about a particular dice roll, but when you do the math they actually rolled above average.

Or when a guy commits a classic blunder and then complains bitterly when his more skilled opponent bends him over a barrel and brutalizes him as a result. For the less skilled it's all about shifting blame.