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.

Id say im pretty good at tactics and strategy, but i almost never bring overly strong lists to back it up. I would probably be well above average if i did cos i get really good rolls too.

 Nevelon wrote:
I like the look of the bell curve.

In an ideal world, with perfect sampling, you should end up with something looking like a normal pure bell. This one is leaning towards “better then average”. And honestly, that’s not surprising. Dakka, while a broad base of players, is still just a fraction of the hobby overall. I suspect that people come to forums to learn how to play better, get advice, etc. By exchanging ideas, tactics, list ideas and criticisms I’d hope that we’d be better players then “average”. Plus a lot of us here have been playing a while.

When I voted I expected the answer to be more skewed towards the high end. Most people think they are above average generally. Nice to see some honest, self aware people on the bottom of the curve. But given time and experience, you can fix that.

I’m average myself.

From past scientific literature, I seem to recall that on average people rate themselves as better than average.

Traditio wrote:
It's pretty easy to be really good at Warhammer 40k:

Step 1: Buy the most broken codex.
Step 2: Spam the most broken units in that codex.
Step 3: Find players who are doing neither 1 nor 2.
It's so easy even complete newbs can do amazingly well!

na you will need some skill to pull it off.

I once tabled a screamer star net list with my foot slogging orks in a local tournament. The guy just didn't knew how his army worked. So I killed the book and the big bird in turn 2.
But I would be pulverised if the guy knew what he was doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not making tactical mistakes is also quite a big deal, when the other player isn't completely clueless.

I would say that I'm an average player. I don't tend to make any HUGE mistakes, but I make a bunch of little ones that, combined with my abysmal rolling, mean that most of my games are nail biters

I base my "I'm a good player" self-assessment on about 80-100 games going back to 6th edition.

I think I'm pretty average all in all. For just about every moment of tactical genius there's a comical blunder I make.

When the lists are about on even ground, I'm a strong player for my area. But I tend to only bring fluffy lists, and my opponents like to do the same. As such, I couldn't claim more than average, since I've never competed in the top level stuff.

I have been referred to as "poetry in motion".

Just kidding, I stink

Traditio wrote:
It's pretty easy to be really good at Warhammer 40k:

Step 1: Buy the most broken codex.
Step 2: Spam the most broken units in that codex.
Step 3: Find players who are doing neither 1 nor 2.

It's so easy even complete newbs can do amazingly well!

Do you just come on here to complain? You have a top tier army, yet don't know how to play them.

I suck, but the power of "codex, tau empire" saves me.

Hard to tell. I'm always trying to bring unconventional lists and participate in "I bet a model this crap is not going to win anything" where i'm fielding "this crap".

But i like to think i'm good. When i play against an average player, i fell like a tactician. When i play against a highly skilled one, i make a whole bunch of mistakes that a really good player can easilly avoid. So...in reality, i think i'm somewhere above average but not great.

All Im going to say is, Ive won more games than Lost with Full DE vs all the SM/Tau/Eldar/Necron players out there.

Not saying I'm amazing, but saying I can win with DE

As far as strategy is concerned - I know all the laws of warfare and implement them to my advantage. In this sense I do the best that i can. This is however a dice game where luck is a huge factor in a single game. It's kind of like asking someone - how good are you at heads up poker? Well I can win at heads up poker more than I lose but even so I'm going to lose too. Because all things being equal - the dice decide the game.

I get 2-4 games per year so I am pretty bad.

If you normally play in competitive local tourneys, and attend larger ones -- even if you fall in the middle of the pack this puts you above the average.

No type of gaming has much of a foothold in my city. This leads to a very poor sample size of opponents. So after going on a couple 30 or higher win streaks between losses between 6th and 7th, but not going to any events ever, I figured I was just above average, being a moderate fish in a tiny pond with tiny fish.

Finally decided to test myself at a few GT's and other events last year. Won a GT and two local events, and placed high at all the others. So far I have always been above the half-win/half-loss threshold at any event I took seriously.* (*this sounds like a copout, but I actually did take a bad list to a small free event once just to see if I could avoid last place and did.) Ended up as a faction champ in the ITC, and took home about a grand in prize support with about 400 spent on event entry/hotels/gas over the year.

But I agree that lists and matchup luck are really really relevant. The first event last year that I took home a pro painted knight from (and convinced me to try others) had several lists below me that would've thrashed mine with no contest had we been matched. It's entirely possible that I could've gotten those matches and been convinced that I wasn't up to snuff.

So my final answer is: \o.o/ Who knows! I'd like to say sure I'm pretty good, but there's always someone better.

If I can manage to lose a game when I'm playing Eldar and my opponent is playing Chaos Space Marines (Nurgly ones), then I'm pretty sure I'm not the best tactician there is.

I'm decent at the game, though I'd think my win-loss ratio would be slightly negative if I counted. It's just this one player that I have never defeated when he brings out his Nurgle army.

I'm sub-par, at best. I've gotten a little better, as I almost always win at least one game out of three in local three-game tournaments. I generally don't have a list that can compete with my very cut-throat local tournament meta (most of the guys bring lists that they would bring to GT's like Adepticon). I'm not sure I could beat these guys even with a cheesy netlist, as most of them have been playing far longer than I have.

I can't actually tell if I'm ok or not.

I understand the game conceptually. The rules aren't difficult and I used to play Fantasy competitively.

The problem is I always try to bring an army that looks like...well an army. And most competitive lists these days look like a horrendous mish mash of spammable formations and units cherry picked from the allies chart. I hate mish mash armies so much it's unreal.

I always bring minimum 2 10 man units of CSM, so that should say enough. But I do have a fairly successful win ratio believe it or not, even though admittedly my opponents aren't bringing Adepticon lists, nor would I even want to play against one if I had the chance.

There's too much disparity between units for me to decide if it's actual tactics carrying the day, or just spammable nonsense and dumb luck.

I am really bad at actually playing 40k. I can count the wins on one hand.

Considering I play Chaos Space Marines as one and Daemons as a second army, all the while winning 3/4 games I play, I would say I am slightly above average in my playing.

I am far from the best i know, but in my current meta I am most likely in the top 25% of the playerbase realistically.

This is based on casual play and local tournaments.

I am pretty bad. I can win, but it isn't a sure thing. I haven't taken my newest setup out for a spin, and it is drastically different than what I was playing before (used to run two Tactical Squads in Rhinos, now I run zero). So perhaps my fortunes will change a bit. Three Drop Pods instead of any Rhinobacks is a big change too. The only units that remain from my old setup is Pedro Kantor, a Drop Pod squad of Sternguard (one of two now), a squad of LSS Bolter Scout Squad (one of two now), and a squad of Lascannon Devastators.

I'm a pretty good player, but I like to bring units I like and that's not always the best (Dread with Flamer and Assault Cannon).

I could run top tier lists and probably have a 90% win rate, but I feel that'd suck all the fun out of the game for me.

I only play fun builds or random mish-mash builds. So to win, I'd need the intervention of the imperor himself to make fun builds viable.

But nothing is funner then blowing stuff up with a snapshooting HB leman russ. Dunno why.

Voted last option, I am terrible.

I play like one game a year if I'm lucky, none of my friends are interested in the gaming, they're all hobbyists. I don't even have the current rulebook, there's no point for me.

I suck, but on purpose.

I don't optimise particularly, I don't spam, I don't exploit, I don't bandwagon.

But my army is always purdy. No paint, no play!

 Azreal13 wrote:
No paint, no play!

Preach it, brother! I won't refuse an opponent just because his army isn't painted, but it does kind of annoy me. I know that not everyone wants to dedicate what little free time we have today to painting, but I refuse to use a model until it is painted and clear coated. It's kind of a pride thing for me.

Voted for the bottom option, but only because there wasn't an option below it.

Have never really let it bother me, in 1st edition I lost a lot, forget how often but not sure I ever actually won.

Came back in 5th, my IG managed to win a few games by random luck really caused by an opponent who couldn't handle 200+ guardsmen, but generally they got mowed down as an infantry company wasn't amazing.

Played one game of 6th, which I lost

Have had a few games of 7th with my Tyranids, who have yet to win a game.

Still never really bothers me as I tend to place for fun, against people who are also playing for fun so they games tend to be good anyway.

I'd say I'm pretty decent at the game. Granted, I'm still new and learning, but I've already beaten tougher armies like Space Wolves, Dark Angles, stuff like that. I play orks, so I like a challenge, and even though my win rate probably isn't 50/50, I'm definitely improving as my army grows.

I consider myself a "good" player, even though I run sup-optimal lists and units. I mean, I use the Librarius Conclave, but use each Librarian as squad leaders in my Tact/Stern squads (for fluff reasons, they're Technomagi ).

I think I'm "good" at the game, because almost every game I have gives me and my mates something to talk about, some amazing feat or silly mistake that makes for a good story to share. I've been tabled, as well as tabling others, i've held a defensive position with 2 tact squads for a win, i've charged recklessly into a unwinnable situation (for the Glory of the Emperor ofc), i've min-maxxed to see if I could, i've had WAAC guys lie about their point totals (100-200 over limit) and still had fun. I treat all games as a way to forge a narrative for my army, as well as a learning experience