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.

The Pan Fo could take the footdar easy.

Yeah, but the only really competitive Pan Fo build is super cheesy, and they is only got better in Fifth. Hopefully GW gets them a new codex so they're more balanced.

I think what MoM stated is spot on, but gets overlooked. I've read lots of posts on various forums/blogs/etc... that basically state: if you don't use x,y,z, you won't win. But, if you do win, it's because your opponents must have sucked.

Really?!?!?!?

The reality is the footslogging Eldar list is not an optimized list in 5th edition. However, if someone makes it work in various tourneys, what's the big deal? No one argues what a min/max list is. Anyone whose played 40K for any length of time can pick out the optimized stuff in a codex in about 15 minutes...not really difficult. I personally like Blackmoor's reports as it keeps me interested with my own Ulthwe army (which has been barely tweaked since 3rd edition as I rarely feel like painting more Eldar). To me, all these reports prove is that a person can go to any tourney and still compete if they know what they are doing. Personally, I prefer the closer games and the games I'm really thinking all the way until the last turn as opposed to a point and click army.

As there is no such place as only the best players with the most optimized lists participate, Blackmoor's reports are decent reads with some good pics with an army outside the norm. He has the ability to attend multiple tourneys and posts how he fares. Again, what's the big deal.

Thank you Blackmoor for posting these (as well as a big thanks to others on these boards who post great reports). As someone who's been deployed for the past 11 months, it's nice to read these to get my 40K fix.

When less optimized lists win, it also raises the discomforting (for some) question of how much army list really matters in winning games of 40k, especially when compared to army match ups and scenarios.

Player skill > Army List

I agree, thanks for the reports from a skilled player. They are entertaining and you learn from them.

I like seeing unconventional armies winning, it is interesting. It goes to show that a skilled player can make things happen with a "suboptimal" list.

I think that there are limits to any generalization about army list vs. player skill. I agree that when a player is in the upper 10% or so of skill, any army with all the tools needed can win, it comes down to match ups and scenarios.

it's not pure rock/paper/scissors, but it's not about what army is the best, it's about which army has the most good matchups (or the fewest bad ones).

I agree with that statement. Even a great player in a total mismatch can lose to a new player, but those types of scenarios are fairly uncommon.

I was obviously generalizing to a pretty large extent, but you are correct in that it is not a binary situation.

I believe though, in general, that a good player will win more often than not against a less skilled player with a superior list.

So long as you have the tools to win the game in your list, you can find a way to win.

That said though, two players of equal skill will more often than not see victory determined by the list.

In the end I do believe skill to be the more important of the two, by a fairly large margin.

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres alot of lists that do well, but look questionable on paper. But paper cant take into account how that army is played.

This is something I'd like to speak to. When stuff looks questionable on paper, but actually does well on the tabletop, then there's several conclusions that may be drawn. Most people stop at the "well, it must have been that they were facing a bad list, or a bad player, or their dice were lucky, etc". Very rarely will anyone accept the conclusion that "Hey, if I question the efficacy of a list, and it actually does well on the tabletop, maybe my ability to connect army lists to winning game-play is at fault".

I'd say that this is because of several "invisible" factors, such as terrain, dice results, and player skill. Terrain seems to be invisible because the game makes little to no account for its value, nor the cost of its impact on the game; players don't buy terrain like they buy units, with points used to balance the game, and the quantity/quality of terrain varies tremendously. Dice results don't have to be invisible, they can be tracked, but most people aren't bothered to track their deviations from expected norms. Finally player skill is the variable for which the game is a solution-procedure, and thanks to the other unknown variables tends to come with a considerable margin of error (which is the matter at hand, whether winning indicates skill, and how).

I think the emphasis on lists is because they're really easy to post on the Internet. Tactics require diagrams at best and in depth discussion at worst; I say "at worst" because let's face it that discussion forums like this don't lend themselves to careful technical discussion.

It goes back to the cliche that "It looks good on paper..." which is to say that one's theory didn't sufficiently model reality. Whether something looks good on paper or looks questionable, it begs the question (in the technical sense, look it up if you're not familiar with this term of art) unless the subject questions their subjectivity of how and why it looks good. Theory can account for how an army plays, if its assumptions are accurate. It's that last part that kills most theories, because their assumptions aren't examined or even mentioned.

That's why YMMV's mission to 'improve' the state of the tournament game is doomed to failure, not because Stelek is an abrasive drama queen, but because it substitutes drama for the often dry and tedious business of analysis. Of course it's encouraged some people to develop their own skills, but the problem with developing one's own skills is the lack of perspective. Someone else has already pointed out how differences between different areas make cross-competing claims to excellence incommensurable, so that someone beating a weak area may consider themselves an expert, but it bears repeating that it doesn't matter whether you're successful or not.

What does matter is that people take the time and effort to communicate their theories and their data, so that there's an objective basis to judge claims about a game. Blackmoor is to be commended for the report, but the information provided is pretty inconclusive when it comes to evaluating his relative skill, or the efficacy of his army list.

Reecius wrote:Player skill > Army List

I agree, thanks for the reports from a skilled player. They are entertaining and you learn from them.

I like seeing unconventional armies winning, it is interesting. It goes to show that a skilled player can make things happen with a "suboptimal" list.

Its not that cut and dry. Ive played many new players with very little tactical thought, but they took internet lists and had good rolling dice and made my life hard as hell because everything they shot died.

List has a huge impact on the outcome, if you take a list with zero AT, or zero anti-horde, your game is gunna be tough

Luck also plays a major roll, if you cant roll a 3+ to save your life, things wont go your way

Yeah true, luck plays a huge part, but that is nothing you can control unless you cheat. That is just a complete variable.

I stated above that it wasn't a binary situation, but that in general skill is superior to list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which of course is my opinion, that I am sure plenty of people disagree with.

I always remember what Janthkin taught me years and years ago:

"A good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you a game."

Taking good lists (or net-deck lists off the web) will sure help you, but there's no such thing as an auto-pilot list that wins no matter how stupid you are.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I always remember what Janthkin taught me years and years ago:

"A good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you a game."

Taking good lists (or net-deck lists off the web) will sure help you, but there's no such thing as an auto-pilot list that wins no matter how stupid you are.

That is a very solid piece of advice.

My thoughts on army list vs skill, luck etc. can be found here: http://gamers-gone-wild.blogspot.com/2010/04/importance-of-army-list.html

H.B.M.C. wrote:I always remember what Janthkin taught me years and years ago:

"A good list won't win you a game, but a bad list will lose you a game."

Taking good lists (or net-deck lists off the web) will sure help you, but there's no such thing as an auto-pilot list that wins no matter how stupid you are.

wow thats exactly what I was trying to say but in such a better way than I could have ever worded it. That is essentially the truth behind the matter.

But suppose that a net-deck list was easier to win with than one you came up with yourself because you were a clueless newbie, that's would stunt your development as a player, particularly if the local meta-game and/or available terrain catered to its style of play.

To me most Net lists are local meta based. Meaning that I don't think it's really possible to take a list off the internet unless the guy that came up with it lives in the same general area you do. Reason being the way terrain and other local army builds run. Example would be some of the "awesome" BoLS and YTTH lists. A lot of those wouldn't work here in SoCal due to the way a lot of tournaments are run around here with LOS blocking terrain.

Just something to consider.

That's why photos of games in progress are so interesting: you get to see the terrain that people are playing on.

HBMC has it, that is a good way to put it. Well, I guess Janthkin has it!

Nice Blog, Obese Monkey, I think you summed up that topic well.

I have been working on a Tactics 101 article to follow up my list building 101 article and I must say, it is a much more difficult subject to tackle due to the nebulous nature of the games.

As Hulk and others said, the game varies so much based upon match up, terrain, missions, etc. that the topic is extremely broad.

There really is no substitute for skill.

I will finish that article here soon, I kind of dropped it as I got busy with life, but I think I should wrap that sucker up in the next few weeks to get some more good info out there for the community.

Nurglitch wrote:That's why photos of games in progress are so interesting: you get to see the terrain that people are playing on.

Or not playing on, as so many of these tournament reports seem to show us. Endless tables with only the barest scraps of terrain... sad really.