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.

Ailaros wrote:

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?

Why? Because your above response to scuddman is itself a false assumption. You're POSTULATING that mistakes only make a difference when two players are of grossly unequal skill. In truth, mistakes always matter. They matter MOST when players are of *very* close skill.

I'm not sure we even have the ability to speak the same language. Everything you're theorizing is....backwards.

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

Well, as I said..

Ailaros wrote: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.

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

You can chose to move a unit 6" in one direction, or 6" in another. They come with different risk sets. Which direction and how far you chose to move isn't determined by luck. The results of the risks you took by moving in one way and not another are determined by dice.

I mean, what would it matter if you chose to move something into range and then missed all your attacks? Just moving something into range, in this case, didn't actually do anything. It was the results of the die roll that determined if your movement actually wound up mattering or not.

Redbeard wrote:If it is turn seven (no dice roll to prolong the game), and it is your turn, and you have the opportunity to win the game by moving a vehicle to contest an opponent's objective, and you fail to do so, that is a mistake.

Yes, but in this case, you have taken luck out of the picture, so the only thing left is skill.

If it's the bottom of the last game of the turn, you KNOW your unit can't be killed (barring a dangerous terrain test or something), which means that there is no risk to moving to contest an objective. In this case, there would be NO risk to moving forward, and probably a great deal to gain. This makes it an obvious choice.

If someone decided to forgo possible gain at no risk, that would be a very bad choice, but not necessarily a "mistake" in the way people have been throwing that word around.

Dashofpepper wrote:You're POSTULATING that mistakes only make a difference when two players are of grossly unequal skill.

Actually, the theory traces the effect that mistakes have from anywhere between gross disparity, and similarity.

Dashofpepper wrote:In truth, mistakes always matter. They matter MOST when players are of *very* close skill.

Why?

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm not sure we even have the ability to speak the same language. Everything you're theorizing is....backwards.

This is not a convincing reason.

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

Even then, it can still be held up to be a mistake. If you misjudge how far it is to that piece of cover, and you end up leaving your unit out in the open, that's a mistake you made. Even when you're moving, your taking a gamble that you're able to move from one piece of cover to the next. That it's better to move than stand still, or whatever.

Granted, this is a type of mistake that can be fixed with skill, but it goes tos how that even movement is a gamble in 40k.

ChrisWWII wrote: If you misjudge how far it is to that piece of cover, and you end up leaving your unit out in the open, that's a mistake you made.

sourclams wrote:

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.

Right, just because you calculate a risk poorly (say, by not taking all variables into account), that doesn't mean the end result isn't a calculated risk, it just means that it was a poorly calculated calculated risk.

Movement isn't a gamble, it's a strategic choice.

Take the Hawk-Dove game I mentioned a while back. Choosing Hawk isn't a gamble, it's simply the best choice to make whether your opponent chooses Dove or Hawk. Likewise movement in Warhammer 40k is usually a constant: if you decide to move 6", you'll move 6".

That's different from taking the risk of exposing your unit to whatever it is that may cause the unit to be removed from the board, but that risk is independent of the likelihood of it occurring, and the opposing player's counter-move. Again, a matter of potential rather than luck because you know what could happen if you make that move.

Incidentally, if you're still misjudging distances, you need to play more...

Nurglitch wrote:Movement isn't a gamble, it's a strategic choice.

I agree.

The question is, what is the impact of movement on the ultimate outcome of the game? Unless you're in a specific circumstance where luck doesn't factor in, then luck is the only determiner of the outcome of anything within the game.

So what if you moved something? Movement is only a tool. The meaning of movement is only relevant in regards to what you achieved because of your movement. That which determines what you achieve ultimately boils down to luck.

Ailaros wrote:[

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm not sure we even have the ability to speak the same language. Everything you're theorizing is....backwards.

This is not a convincing reason.

You've had 11 pages of reasons. Lengthy ones explaining *why* your theory is backwards. If you don't get it now, I don't expect you will. Continue believing that skills becomes more and more irrelevant the greater they get in favor of luck being a dominant factor in your gaming.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing else I can add to this thread - its there to be read, which is the best I can offer. I really *do* just see a lot of "If I can't win, its the fault of dice" going on here. I can't influence the world, I can't change everyone's opinions, and if everyone listened to me, I suspect my tournament performances would suffer.

So for the third time!! I give up. For super duper real this time, no take-backs. I had stopped posting but continued reading, which I shouldn't have done because I got pulled back in.

My parting shot: According to the theory here, I'm either incredibly lucky or I've never played an intelligent person, because as skill goes up, luck is more important. I *am* unlucky with dice, beyond anecdotal evidence, and I still win - because at the seriously competitive 40k levels, it isn't about dice rolls, but about exploiting mistakes. Even the tiny ones.

Dashofpepper wrote:You've had 11 pages of reasons. Lengthy ones explaining *why* your theory is backwards. If you don't get it now, I don't expect you will.

Actually, of those comments from you in those 11 pages, the only reasons are based on logical fallacies. It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's that I don't believe what you're saying is accurate.

So far, you haven't given a single convincing reason, despite 11 pages of talking.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm pretty sure there's nothing else I can add to this thread

Actually, you haven't really added anything in the first place. It's not to say that you can't, but if you're going to be a meaningfully positive contributor to something, then you have to stop only using fallacy to make your arguments.

Dashofpepper wrote:According to the theory here, I'm either incredibly lucky or I've never played an intelligent person, because as skill goes up, luck is more important.

That is correct.

If you take offense to that conclusion, then it's your choice to be offended. If you think that the conclusion is wrong, perhaps you could offer a better, more comprehensive, more well-thought-out, more accurate theory? You know, one not based on fallacy?

sourclams wrote:

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.

It can't be a calculated risk, if you don't know the pre-cursory calcluations, it's just a full blown risk. Full blown risks are often mistakes. I mean literally.. The choice to contribute into Madoffs Fund was pure lunacy, and idiots at work, nothing more.

Dashofpepper wrote:My parting shot: According to the theory here, I'm either incredibly lucky or I've never played an intelligent person, because as skill goes up, luck is more important. I *am* unlucky with dice, beyond anecdotal evidence, and I still win - because at the seriously competitive 40k levels, it isn't about dice rolls, but about exploiting mistakes. Even the tiny ones.

I would say this one. You are playing intelligent top tier players, but your skill and preperation and devotion for the game is far above and beyond your opponents, so your winning all your games. Your not incredibly lucky, your are just that much better then the people you are facing. There are anomolies like this for any game or sport (Micheal phelps in swimming), and you can't really apply Ailaros's theory to your situation.

Thats just pure speculation though, I have never actually seen you play.

Ailaros wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:According to the theory here, I'm either incredibly lucky or I've never played an intelligent person, because as skill goes up, luck is more important.

That is correct.

If you take offense to that conclusion, then it's your choice to be offended. If you think that the conclusion is wrong, perhaps you could offer a better, more comprehensive, more well-thought-out, more accurate theory? You know, one not based on fallacy?

You're saying the guy who plays in multiple tournaments every year has never played an intelligent person?

Yeah, there is luck involved in 40k, but good players control luck. Double up on shooting/assaulting targets instead of risking not killing X. Have redundant units so if you lose one you can still kill X or still capture objectives, or whatever.

The more skilled you become the more you know how to deal with the inherent randomness of the game.

Ailaros wrote:So what if you moved something? Movement is only a tool. The meaning of movement is only relevant in regards to what you achieved because of your movement. That which determines what you achieve ultimately boils down to luck.

Here's an exercise for you: play an objective game of Warhammer 40,000 solely in the Movement phase: no shooting, running, assault (and no vehicles either). Use rock-scissors-paper to remove any 'luck' in determining the first turn, no seizing. You may find it to be an interesting experience.

Alright, luck can swing a game, no question, but the skill comes in to hedgeing your bets and building lists. Luck is a factor, yes I can roll 15 3+ saves and make everyone, or fail like 11 of them, this is how luck swings things. No stratagey and becoming a better player is changing your odds of things happening. Army lists can be built better with built in redundencies built in to overcome a unit not preforming, and through movement and some tactical thinking you can limit the number of times you need to get that stellar roll, or limit the number of ways an oppenents good dice can nail you by hiding units, moving and baiting with other targets to keep your plan in motion, and making him make a mistake. I find the closer in skill two players are the more luck can play a factor yes, but sometimes we forget you play an oppenent and you can force favorable matchups and mistakes on his/her part by playing and moving a certain way, we play dice games with toy soldiers, but in that we also have to play our oppenent, that is where tactics and a little bit of psychology and understanding how an opponent thinks comes in, and in the area of reading and manipulating your oppenent into doing what you need him to do, that wasn't luck, the luck comes in after when you roll to do whatever you just set up. Luck affects games, but stratagy sets up the best possible odds and mismatches. Ailaros I have read many of your battle reports, which are well done, and you have several games where you won, in spite of luck. You won those games with a solid strategy and a good redundant solid list, in spite of bad luck.

Nurglitch wrote:

Ailaros wrote:So what if you moved something? Movement is only a tool. The meaning of movement is only relevant in regards to what you achieved because of your movement. That which determines what you achieve ultimately boils down to luck.

Here's an exercise for you: play an objective game of Warhammer 40,000 solely in the Movement phase: no shooting, running, assault (and no vehicles either). Use rock-scissors-paper to remove any 'luck' in determining the first turn, no seizing. You may find it to be an interesting experience.

Your right - movement has no luck factor when you are disregarding shooting and assault implications (assuming ignoring difficult and dangerous terrain as well). Congratulations, you proved nothing.

Amaya wrote:Yeah, there is luck involved in 40k, but good players control luck. Double up on shooting/assaulting targets instead of risking not killing X. Have redundant units so if you lose one you can still kill X or still capture objectives, or whatever.

Within the context of 40k, that sort of in-built redundancy more reflects the 'skill' needed to play at a higher level. I have enough plasma guns to kill 8 Terminators, but I bring double that 'just in case' I roll poorly. I have 4 troop units even though 3 is the maximum number I would ever need to win a game, but I may lose one or be forced to use #4 to contest.

Doubling up on shooting at a priority target and failing utterly due to horrendous dice rolling would be a good player attempting to control luck via redundancy, and failing through luck so bad that it cannot be sufficiently compensated for given list and point cost constraints.

doubled wrote:Alright, luck can swing a game, no question, but the skill comes in to hedgeing your bets and building lists. No, stratagey and becoming a better player is changing your odds of things happening.

I agree. We've actually talked a lot about this already. We're talking about skill relative to your opponent's skill. Remember, your skill is changing the odds for you, but your opponent is also changing the odds against you.

Ragnar4 wrote:It can't be a calculated risk, if you don't know the pre-cursory calcluations, it's just a full blown risk. Full blown risks are often mistakes. I mean literally.. The choice to contribute into Madoffs Fund was pure lunacy, and idiots at work, nothing more.

It's a poorly calculated calculated risk.

And really, the Madoff fund? When people did their risk assessment, they found a company that paid consistent dividends. It was only in hindsight that it was all a sham. If people knew in advance that investing with madoff was "lunacy" level of risk, no one would have done it.

Amaya wrote:You're saying the guy who plays in multiple tournaments every year has never played an intelligent person?

Well, those were his words, actually. What I'm saying is that if you're beating your opponents 90% of the time with really bad luck, you must be much better than your opponents.

That or you're not actually as unlucky as you say, or you're not actually winning 90% of your games. There are lots of possible ways you could read it.

So I haven't read pages 4-12 of this so I'm not up to date, but I will give an example of something that happened to me this weekend that some people might call luck, I call skill.

I was playing the chaos guy I never beat with my leaf blower army in an 1850 tournament. He reserved everything, as always. I castled up in a corner, planning on blowing him away when he came in.

We were playing the best of three objectives format, objectives being Kill Points, Destroy the most expensive unit, and destroy all troops.

He came on the board in the opposite corner. All game all I could kill was 3 oblits, and we tied at 1kp v 1kp.

Now to only kill 3 oblits I had some fairly abismal shooting. BUT, I made A LOT of tacitical mistakes that allowed a couple of unit's abismal shooting to cost me the game.

#1- I took first turn. I don't know why I did it, I think because he had a raider and I didn't want him to move it and blow smoke. In hindsight if his stuff had been on the table to shoot at I probably would have done better.
#2 - I took a master of the fleet, which was in hindsight a terrible decision. I was leaning towards it being a bad choice anyway, then this player and I come up against eachother at this store virutally every tournament, and he loves to reserve against me. It really cost me the game because his stuff came in so late, and I chose first, I only had like three shooting phases to shoot at him.
#3 - I deployed terribly. It's hard to describe without pictures but it was awful, all the important stuff in all the wrong places. It allowed him to come in on the extreme flank and then only a tiny percentage of my army had range to him.

Yes, even the tiny percentage of stuff that had range should have been able to outshoot him and win. But I think it is more approriate to blame all the factors under my control that allowed that situation to exist in the first place.

Just my opinion.

sourclams wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yeah, there is luck involved in 40k, but good players control luck. Double up on shooting/assaulting targets instead of risking not killing X. Have redundant units so if you lose one you can still kill X or still capture objectives, or whatever.

Within the context of 40k, that sort of in-built redundancy more reflects the 'skill' needed to play at a higher level. I have enough plasma guns to kill 8 Terminators, but I bring double that 'just in case' I roll poorly. I have 4 troop units even though 3 is the maximum number I would ever need to win a game, but I may lose one or be forced to use #4 to contest.

Doubling up on shooting at a priority target and failing utterly due to horrendous dice rolling would be a good player attempting to control luck via redundancy, and failing through luck so bad that it cannot be sufficiently compensated for given list and point cost constraints.

I tried to unsubscribe----but every time I enter the 40k Tactics forum here's this thread leading the group~~


Right, there are risky 40k players and pragmatic 40k players. For example, if I have two units within assault range of two units---I can do the math in my head and think statistically, I should be fine to split my assaults based on WS, # of attacks, etc. Or I can play it safe, assault one unit with two units----and overwhelm the odds to rid myself of more and more outliers.

One method is safe with smaller return---the other is riskier with larger return.

One veteran 40k player can walk up and state "Well, you play to win so split your assault--play off normal statistics and go for the throat."
Another veteran 40k player can walk up and state "Well, you go for the sure thing here and double up a unit so the dice don't get you"

Of course, you can play it safe---double up assault---and still roll nothing but 1's, therein losing both units to one as well. C'est la 40k



However, I can't really say that skill equates into adding redundancy to the system though. Some players may knowingly take risks with the dice for that large return and provided they roll normally----they will likely beat the guy that places redundancy in his system due to unit efficiency.

Dashofpepper wrote:
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.

No, I'm not taking your anecdote out of context, but you've continuously ignored the other side of it.

You made mistakes that allowed the game to reach that state. We both agree on that.

But here's the rub. Your opponent must also have made mistakes, that also allowed the game to reach that state. If your opponent had played better (for example, if they had ensured Mephiston was where he needed to be, rather than leaving him straddling quarters), then they would have exploited your mistakes better, and would have won outright, without the need for this last, final d6.

It isn't like you're trying to tell us that your opponent played a perfect game, and you only lost because of the d6. Your opponent also played an imperfect game. And you two are both "top players". Neither of you were noobs, doing stupid stuff. You had both fought yourselves into those finals after many rounds of competitive play.

The fact that neither of you were able to capitalize on the other's mistakes in order to win the game decisively is very telling. You're both quality players, but you just never had that opening - neither of you. Why not? Because 40k is a game with two players, and you're at cross purposes to one another. When you run into someone else who is at your skill level, that skill tends to counter itself out. Your opponent prevented you from exploiting his mistakes to the extent that you could win the game. You prevented him from exploiting your mistakes to the extent that it cost you the game. And, at the end of the game, it came down to one d6 roll.

I don't know how much more perfect an anecdote for the OP's case there could be. But you keep disregarding your opponent's impact on the game at all, just claiming that you lost because of your mistakes. But the second before that d6 was rolled, it was anyone's game, and your opponent's mistakes also led to that situation.

Ailaros wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:According to the theory here, I'm either incredibly lucky or I've never played an intelligent person, because as skill goes up, luck is more important.

That is correct.

Dashofpepper wrote: I *am* unlucky with dice, beyond anecdotal evidence, and I still win

Ailaros...
According to your theories Dash is incredibly lucky or has never played an intelligent person, and above, you confirmed that that is correct.
Now considering Dash IS unlucky (Most of the time AFAIK) then what does that imply... considering that Dash and I participated in game not to long ago, and i was trounced all the way to hell and back?
Now, i feel quite offended by the fact that you are implying that i am unintelligent.

Dashofpepper wrote:because at the seriously competitive 40k levels, it isn't about dice rolls, but about exploiting mistakes. Even the tiny ones.

Given, the main reason for me loosing was not luck, as we were both lucky/unlucky in certain regards... And i know i'm not a hardcore tourney gamer like Dash, but our W/L ratios are roughly equal... the main reason for that loss was due to a few small mistakes. I saw them as soon as my turn ended, and so did Dash. He exploited those small mistakes with as much force as he could muster and applied the required pressure and target allocation into making any mistakes, no matter how small, into big ones.
Now i'll be the first to admit my mistakes, and ultimetly, that is what won dash the game. I know this because of two reasons. One, we had a nice discussion about it after the game, and two, because i apply the same principles in my other games. One small mistake can sway a game in such a way that luck has little to no bearing.

So skill was unequal. Don't take that personally, because it's not meant to be. Your mental flub resulted in an imperfect game, Dash capitalized on it (which would be expressed as greater skill), and if dice had rolled so badly that Dash's perfectly sound decisions to capitalize on your mistake failed, then that would be luck trumping skill.

In this case skill was unequal from the start, and the OP still stands.

sourclams wrote:So skill was unequal. Don't take that personally, because it's not meant to be. Your mental flub resulted in an imperfect game, Dash capitalized on it (which would be expressed as greater skill), and if dice had rolled so badly that Dash's perfectly sound decisions to capitalize on your mistake failed, then that would be luck trumping skill.

In this case skill was unequal from the start, and the OP still stands.

No offence taken.
I would say skill was unequal, as 2 players will never truely be "equal" in skill, one will always be slightly better than the other even if it is by the smallest amount. But taking into account the many and varied army combinations Mr.X could be "better" than Mr. Y, who is in turn "better" than Mr. Z, who is in turn "better" than Mr. X.

We both made mistakes, just because Dash was able to capitalize first does not mean he had significantly greater skill, that he was more lucky or that the match-up was significantly unequal.
The simple fact is that the tiniest mistake can cause a cascade effect resulting in one player winning and one player loosing.

This just goes back to my point that the model isn't based on reality. Nobody ever has equal skill, and skill means more than luck in general.

It's good as an intelligence exercise, but at the same time, does this model tell us anything exceptionally useful?

It's like saying that basketball teams are perfectly fair if everyone had the same level of athleticism, so the game should always go into overtime. Great, no two teams have the exact same players, strategies, and situations at the same time against each other.

Except for Eldrad. He's so powerful, he's always there, in every single Eldar army. Even when two Eldar armiies face each other.

scuddman wrote:Except for Eldrad. He's so powerful, he's always there, in every single Eldar army. Even when two Eldar armiies face each other.

Lies!

@Ailaros

Let me explain my thoughts about the influence of luck having an example:

Lascannon vs Landraider (an unequal matchup)

A low skilled player:

OK here we have a landraider and I have a lascannon. If I get it open, there will be terminators inside. So I better move my plasmaguns into position to kill them afterwards (BIG mistake...).

1. scenario: He shoots and explodes the landraider, plasmaguns shoot and kill whats inside, because the landraider was badly placed (equal skill...).
2. scenario: He shoots and fails to do anything. The landraider moves up and the terminators kill the plasmagunners

so we have a situation with a yay or nay outcome. A risk that a skilled player will not take. Because nay is not acceptable and yay can be achieved differently.

A high skilled player:

OK there is a landraider, I have a lascannon, but no other target available, so why not shooting there. Maybe I stun it.

1. scenario: He explodes the landraider, but it does not have a big influence on the game, because the opponent was equally skilled and took this scenario into consideration (disembarking behind the vehicle and terrain before for example, and/or being onto an objective anyways and/or distraction from his AV11 rhinos, whatever...)

2. scenario: He fails to do damage, but he did not expose himself to the counter, so it is not important that his shot failed.

So we have 2 example how bad luck will affect a game most likely from the perspective of a skilled and unexperienced player.

A skilled player will not take a high risk. An unexperienced player will.

This results in a more predictable gameplay of course, but the outcome will be determined by tactical decisions and most likely not by dice.
And on a highly skilled niveau the guys play for a draw as the worst result and the massacre as tha best result. A loss is not acceptable.
So the player with more skill will defeat the less skilled one. This is almost certain. There are the "certain" games, of course, but to be honest, this must be REALLY bad luck...

And equally skilled players on high level will tie most likely.
Equally skilled players on low level will get unpredictable results.

This is also the reason why a skilled player will not be tabled 99% of his games against anyone.
He also wont table his opponents on an equally high skill level 99% of his games.


Where is the logical fallacy here?

If you are top level your means are roadblocking, tankshocking, shifting forces, movement, terrain use. -> no luck involved and no luck needed
If you are bottom level your means are moving up, shoot and assault where you can and see what happens... -> luck involved and needed

So my theory is: If there were a perfect player, luck would be irrelevant. Because perfection does not exist (like equal skill level during a game) luck is a factor, but the higher it gets the less relevant it is.

I think the main fallacy of Dash's argument is that his own examples clearly show a disparity in player skill. In the first example, his opponent suffered basically no damage from his alpha strike, and then had Dash 'playing to survive', yet still allowed Dash to claim three objectives while claiming only one themselves. His opponent didn't play the mission first while Dash kept playing the mission even while behind. This shows a large disparity in skill level, if the players had been of equal skill his opponent would have moved to make sure those objectives couldn't be taken.

In his second example, his opponent reserved what may be (without full lists or point values it's hard to say) a large portion of his effective fire power. While Dash made a mistake with his ravagers, his opponent failed to follow up on this with a flub on target priority, probably the most basic skill in the game.

With no disrespect intended to either of his opponents, they clearly do not play on the same skill level as Dash, and I would say this is probably true of most people Dash plays. However that being the case, these examples are not furthering Dash's posit because the skill level is not equal. While I agree that a game in which opponents and lists are exactly equal is not going to exist outside of a theoretical environment, the pairing would have to be a little closer than these examples for me to accept them.

There is no universal governing body of 40k, any skill level assignments are therefore arbitrary.

Competitive 40k is, sadly, a joke. You go to an event with 10 people and play 3-4 of those ten and someone is declared a winner; it's ridiculous. 30 people, 60 people, 100 people, 150 people... and you still only play 3-6 of those people and someone is declared a winner, even more ridiculous.

To compound it, in most tournaments there is no qualifier for participating and no skill based organization for the first round, and only a minor one for the second. Billy could have bought his army off of e-bay and played his first game on Saturday, and play in the three round tournament on Sunday. Mediocre Bob has been playing for three months, and draws Billy for round 1, massacring him. In round 2 he plays against another player that scored a massacre in round 1, hey look it's Dash. Mediocre Bob gets tabled by turn 3.

This is 40k tournaments (this is Also WHFB tournaments as well, but sticking to the topic).

For two years I played an Ork army locally, and I never lost a game. This is not because I'm a great 40k player, but it is because I was better than the other players at the FLGS. I had my share of good and bad luck, but was always able to offset the bad luck because my opponents were not good enough to seize and capitalize on that bad luck. I played more games than the other players, I read forums more. There is a great deal to be said for practice. Someone mentioned Street Fighter earlier. If you had a guy who played SF four hours a day seven days a week, and a guy that played, meh, maybe three hours a week in a game against each other and you knew nothing besides that, who is your money on?

There are a couple more reasosn 40k is pretty silly as a competitive event, like how income can factor largely into the game. Running MSU of the latest and hotest codex, with every MSU in a vehicle, is not cheap. If someone can not afford (or can afford, but can not justify) the expense of keeping their army up to date with the latest and greatest, they're going to suffer. And lastly and probably the most telling, is the imbalance of the codices. Running Necron or Tau, or Chaos Daemons, greatly reduces your chances of doing well no matter how skilled you are.

I think the main fallacy of Dash's argument is that his own examples clearly show a disparity in player skill. In the first example, his opponent suffered basically no damage from his alpha strike, and then had Dash 'playing to survive', yet still allowed Dash to claim three objectives while claiming only one themselves. His opponent didn't play the mission first while Dash kept playing the mission even while behind. This shows a large disparity in skill level, if the players had been of equal skill his opponent would have moved to make sure those objectives couldn't be taken.

What would be the result? Draw wouldnt it?

Competitive 40k is, sadly, a joke. You go to an event with 10 people and play 3-4 of those ten and someone is declared a winner; it's ridiculous. 30 people, 60 people, 100 people, 150 people... and you still only play 3-6 of those people and someone is declared a winner, even more ridiculous.

Swiss system mitigates this problem a lot:
First game -> random
every game after first: 1. vs 2., 3. vs 4. and so on
in the course of 5 games the first random one will be a kind of irrelevant.

There are a couple more reasosn 40k is pretty silly as a competitive event, like how income can factor largely into the game.

This is true to a certain extent. It is also expensive to travel to many different tournament locations in order to be present in the community.
But there are possibilities to move around it a bit. (Borrowing models/armies, driving together with other guys to reduce costs there...)

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: BUT, I made A LOT of tacitical mistakes that allowed a couple of unit's abismal shooting to cost me the game.

Right, you played a poorer game and lost. There's nothing surprising about that.

-Nazdreg- wrote:A skilled player will not take a high risk. An unexperienced player will.

Well, if that's your definition of "skill", that's fine. It still fits the model.

dayve110 wrote:Now, i feel quite offended by the fact that you are implying that i am unintelligent.

Actually, those were Dash's words. When I put them into my own, you get.

Ailaros wrote:hat I'm saying is that if you're beating your opponents 90% of the time with really bad luck, you must be much better than your opponents.

That or you're not actually as unlucky as you say, or you're not actually winning 90% of your games. There are lots of possible ways you could read it.

Ailaros wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: BUT, I made A LOT of tacitical mistakes that allowed a couple of unit's abismal shooting to cost me the game.

Right, you played a poorer game and lost. There's nothing surprising about that.

My point is 95% of what get called poor luck is actually a poor game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I still tied