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.

I'm new to 40k, well not exactly but I've been focusing on painting my army before I bother learning to play, my question is does 40k have a high skill ceiling in game,
or is victory usually decided by whos army has the advantage over the other?

I've heard a lot of people say Fantasy is more advanced in comparison, but how advanced exactly is 40k in terms of in game depth. I realise 40k has tournaments but
I really want to know if in game tactics have any real influence on who wins or if it all comes down to pregame tactics like deciding which pieces to use.

Thanks for any help.

I'm going to say that it's an easy game to learn how to play, but it'll take quite a few games to actually master some of the more refined aspects of both general play and the specialty skills of your individual army. Strategy is involved on all levels, from building an army to the actual playing of the game, however sometimes it is not always a deciding factor as rolls of the dice can be unforgiving sometimes. I really don't have any experience at all with fantasy. Deciding on an army list requires a good deal of skill and understanding each unit's roll in the game, but in order to win consistently with a list, you must have the strategic follow-through and a dynamic view of tactics as well as a deeper understanding of your in-game objectives. In short, there's a lot of strategy present, it isn't all really visible at once.

The main difference between 40k and Fantasy that I always saw was Fantasy tended to be a more unforgiving game. If you make a movement mistake or forget something in your turn, chances are you won't be able to recover as easily as you can in 40k. There are just a lot more mechanics that go into fantasy than in 40k. 40k has a pretty standardized shooting profile, movement profile, etc. These things have much more variation in fantasy.

On the other hand, player skill in 40k, in my experience, varies greatly depending on the environment. You might get into playing with a group of people who are very competitive and bring highly optimized lists to games. They'll also know the rules inside and out. Other times more casual players will bring weaker, fluff oriented armies, they might not be optimized, but thats not what they are meant for. At any given LGS, you'll find both. Overall, yes, most people know the rules of the game and other races' armies, and the best way to get up to their level of knowledge or expertise is to simply play play play games. And the better your opponent, the better you'll get. When I first started out I would get facerolled consistently. After several losses I finally found a solid footing and learned the best tricks and tactics for designing effective lists and executing deadly tactics.

In my opinion, 5th edition, when compared to older editions, does not have the depth the game used to have. Things have been streamlined and made more efficient, which isn't always a bad thing. Heck I played a 2000 point game in an hour the other day and that was with the usual jaw jacking with my opponent and bathroom breaks. It's not a very cumbersome game when compared to Fantasy. Like I said though, the game did lose a lot of depth with 4th and 5th edition. Universal movement, universal vehicle damage charts, etc, all these decreased the overall depth, but increased efficiency. Depends what matters more to you I guess.

OIF Knight wrote:Heck I played a 2000 point game in an hour the other day and that was with the usual jaw jacking with my opponent and bathroom breaks.

How the heck did you manage that? I can never seem to get my 2000 point games to under 2-3, even 4 hours. The only 2k game I've ever played in under an hour was against a Daemon player who conceded 1st turn after I wiped out his entire first wave with my IG.

On-topic, 40K is definitely easy to learn but difficult to master. Improving the army list you bring and the tactics you use on the table are both essential to increasing your overall skill. Some armies are more forgiving than others, both in the list-building phase and during the actual game, but generally it's a combination of these two skills that determine a player's overall proficiency. The most important piece of having fun with 40K is figuring out what level of skill you prefer to play at - some people like fluffy lists and simple tactics, others like hardcore optimization and ruthless dismemberment of the enemy. I know I like enough optimization to make things interesting, but I'm not really interested in tournament-level competitiveness. I see myself as very middle-of-the-road, I could crush a newbie player or fluffy list if I really wanted to but would get crushed in return by someone with an uber-competitive, top-tier army list or insane tactical genius.

So yes, I think there's a high skill ceiling in 40K, but I think it really, truly depends on who you play and where you want to go with it. I'm near my skill ceiling in my current gaming group, which is pretty OK with me, but I would have a long way to go if I stepped into the tournament scene.

How the heck did you manage that?

Two players who have been playing this game for over ten years, have been playing the same armies for over ten years, and don't bs around much at all when we play. We both know all the rules there are to know, so we don't spend time looking up stats or rules in the BRB.

OIF Knight wrote:

How the heck did you manage that?

Two players who have been playing this game for over ten years, have been playing the same armies for over ten years, and don't bs around much at all when we play. We both know all the rules there are to know, so we don't spend time looking up stats or rules in the BRB.

It's not an uncommon experience, a friend of mine and I usually play 2000pts and it takes between 1 and 2 hours. It helps when you and your opponent agree on how the rules should be interpreted. He plays space marines and I bounce around between various marine chapters and a tau army. His turns also go faster if I kill all his stuff in the first few turns

I managed 2 games last night at 1750 in under 4 hours including table set up for both games...

As mentioned, Long Term vets who play each other regularly very rarely have disputes with rules and trust each other to know whats happening.

As for the skill - if you ever watch 2 vet players with 2 well built and thought out armies, the game is fantasticly tactical. All manner of sneaky maneuvers and tricks are played.

Medium skill ceiling height, infinitly high luck ceiling though.

Massaen wrote:I managed 2 games last night at 1750 in under 4 hours including table set up for both games...

As mentioned, Long Term vets who play each other regularly very rarely have disputes with rules and trust each other to know whats happening.

As for the skill - if you ever watch 2 vet players with 2 well built and thought out armies, the game is fantasticly tactical. All manner of sneaky maneuvers and tricks are played.

I pump out 1850 point games with my blood angels in under an hour all the time. Descent of Angels means first turn nothing happens, then its either win big or lose big.

My IG opponent takes more time setting up than I take for the whole game.

My side of the game generally goes pretty fast, I play marines which have easy rules and hide in metal boxes most of the time so play is easy. DE which move fast, kill fast, and die fast. And GKs which have so few models that games go quickly (and they are just slightly more complicated marines). My daemon army is pretty much shelved at this point, but they go quick due to same reasons DE do. Game length for me is mostly my opponents problem.

Once you get proficient (not necessarily good) you should be able to chart out your armies next moves while your opponent is taking his turn. Something I wish my opponents would do.

Anyways the depth of 40k is relatively deep. 40k is constantly changing with each release and the perceived balance at any given time. On the table most of the challenge is in management of fire arcs, movement, and target priority (and how you play the mission). Knowing "whose the beatdown" is an advanced skill which basically means who can afford to push, and who needs to take risks to gain the initiative or play conservatively until the board improves.

As for fantasy, I used to like it, but the change in magic and the change in charges makes for a much more random game, with people tossing all their magic into kill your army spells and games being lost because critical units rolled snake eyes for charge distance. When randomness and list building become more important that smart play and clever magic use (as opposed to the nukes being tossed around) the game becomes less fun. When they also print new books that aren't as deep or powerful as the previous edition books means that even between armies there is imbalance that shouldn't be there. Or it could be that O&G, TK, and Ogres are always going to suck and Daemons, DE, and Lizards are always going to be good (though DE used to suck before 7th)

All good points above ^^. Games at 2000 points can go very quickly. I admit it often times makes the game seem more like checkers though, when you are making the same (almost rehearsed) moves game in, game out. Playing against a variety of armies and opponents changes this, and can make the game seem infinite in its complexity and tactical possibilities. Also remember there are ways of speeding up things like moving, dice rolling, etc. Fast dice rolling works. When I run a squad of marines a whole 1", my opponents and I usually agree that moving the back rank in front of the front rank is sufficient as opposed to measuring each model individually. Maybe Marines are a bad example, but when I play my horde nids, or when I played my Greentide, a simple trick like this saved gobs of time!

And don't forget, both 40k and fantasy are games of chance when you boil it down. The best tactics and tightest list design can be taken down if you roll terribly and your opponent rolls excellent. You just never really know what will happen

OIF Knight wrote:And don't forget, both 40k and fantasy are games of chance when you boil it down. The best tactics and tightest list design can be taken down if you roll terribly and your opponent rolls excellent. You just never really know what will happen

While 40k certainly does have its fair share of dice rolling there is enough skill involved that if you know what you are doing you can play the odds, and the dice will even out eventually. You may have some bad luck at one point, and some good luck at others. I don't have spectacular luck at dice, but I almost never lose games outside of tournaments. And even then I tend only lose/draw 1 game at most.

Yes chance can get your if you don't bow to the dice gods but there is enough skill to make it less relevant.

Objective based games mean a good player is very often able to pull a tie from the grasp of defeat. By the same logic it is easier to win in fantasy than 40k because there isn't much a good oponent can do when they are on the ropes.

For the most part 40k is less luck dependent than fantasy. A single failed morale or irrestable force spell will effectively end the game in fantasy.

schadenfreude wrote:Objective based games mean a good player is very often able to pull a tie from the grasp of defeat. By the same logic it is easier to win in fantasy than 40k because there isn't much a good oponent can do when they are on the ropes.

For the most part 40k is less luck dependent than fantasy. A single failed morale or irrestable force spell will effectively end the game in fantasy.

+1 to this.

schadenfreude wrote:Objective based games mean a good player is very often able to pull a tie from the grasp of defeat. By the same logic it is easier to win in fantasy than 40k because there isn't much a good oponent can do when they are on the ropes.

For the most part 40k is less luck dependent than fantasy. A single failed morale or irrestable force spell will effectively end the game in fantasy.

This, so much this!

I thought it would be fun to play fantasy... i've made the mistake twice and never plan to repeat it. I possess the mind to play effectively but i don't like how the system works because in my mind orks would never march in ranks or files... ect ect ect. the main differences I have seen in 40k vs fantasy is that in 40k you can play a bit more reactionary to your enemy's movements while in fantasy you have to force your enemy to fit into a plan of yours. Personally i find 40k to be alot more aesthetically pleasing as well as feels like a smoother gameplay than worrying about wheeling, what does what to whose armor. The only thing i would really like to see in 40k is how magic casts and dispels work only maybe tune it down a bit... I like the idea of fighting your enemy for a spell or the like. It would make taking psychics a bit more viable for most armies hell I might even grab a weirdboy if it became foolish NOT to take them for stop other psychics :p

Check out this massive debate/analysis of this subject:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/352134.page

skip halfway in when the OP kinda rebooted it:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/352134.page#2563504

I'd say the game has a fairly high skill ceiling, given the many factors involved, from rules to units to terrain.

Compared to other games, 40k is pretty shallow as far as tactics are concerned. That's not to say there's no depth--There certainly is, and a skilled player will get a lot more out of his forces than an unskilled one, but 40k does a lot less to punish bad moves or encourage synergy than a game like say, Infinity would. For the most part, each unit in 40k is fairly isolated in terms of its abilities, which is why spamming is so effective. You don't take 3 vindicators because they can support the rest of your army, you take them because they're big guns that take models off the table, and if one does a good job, two more do an even better one.

Going to add another simple point. Depth of rules does not = complexity of gameplay. Go has less rules than chess, but go is a more complex game. Diplomacy has way less rules than axis and allies, but diplomacy is a way more complex game. 5th edition has less rules than prevois editions especially rogue trader and 2nd ed, but the current meta is more complex than the old school meta.

3rd edition meta=will my opponent be taking vortex grenades this game?

^^
You mean 2nd edition

D'oh my mistake...2nd is correct :( But I think you got the joke

Well, I agree that 'depth of rules does not = complexity of gameplay', but I think that knowing the rules is part of the skill of the game, and there are quite a few rules - especially considering all the codex rules. Tank shocking is good, but not when you forget that that power klaw is going to get a Death or Glory on your tank! The other day, I fought Gazgull (I think that's the big ork warboss's name) for the first time, and not really caring about winning/losing all that much ever anyways, didn't ask about his special rules (it was a friendly game). Pretty suprised when I found out all his units waagh an auto 6"!

I'm personally undecided about the high skill ceiling.

On one hand you do typically see the same good players win game after game and tourny after tourny, so there has to be a significant measure skill involved in repeating these wins. On the other hand, I'm not 100% convinced it's skill so much as it is knowledge and foresight. The above poster mention Ghazghull and getting surprised by the 6" WAAGH, a top end player wouldn't be able to counter this simply by the fact that he knew it was coming.

Basically, step 1 of being a top end player is knowing EVERYTHING. Every unit, every army, every special rule, every FAQ ruling, every rules dispute and accepted resolution to them, every mission....EVERYTHING. I personally can name the stats, special rules, standard builds and tactics for pretty much every army in the game. This helps you 2 fold. First off, you know what to expect, and how to counter it. Secondly, your opponent can't (intentionally or not) cheat you.

After knowledge comes experience. This is the tricky one though. I've seen people who've played the game for 10 years make some of the dumbest mistakes and play like they don't even know the rules. I've also seen people who haven't even played 10 times sweeping tournaments, it all comes down to knowledge and intelligence more then experience IMO. Experience is where the top players exploit known loop-holes and unimaginably strange quirks in the rules to win. Check out this thread for an example of what I'm talking about. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/357250.page" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/357250.page. All perfectly legal movement tricks, and some of this stuff I wouldn't have even dreamed of. The raider double tank shock nob isolate trick is particularly impressive in both it's planning and execution, not to mention dreaming up such a nasty trick in the first place.

All that said, there is a measure of rock-paper-scissor with army lists as well, and if you end up against the Rock to your Scissors and a good opponent, you are basically screwed. DE or GK vs Nids for example, nids are screwed if their opponent is decent.

Project2501 wrote:Medium skill ceiling height, infinitly high luck ceiling though.

Yeah, I'd have to say that the person who goes first often has the advantage.

There's also a difference between complexity and skill ceiling.

For example, one could construct a ridiculously arcane version of roulette, but it'd still be entirely based on luck.

There is pretty much NO luck in Chess, apart (perhaps) from drawing an opponent you happen to be suited to beat.

Another corellating question is how "big" can you win in 40K? A common claim.net is people talking about tabling all their opponents and not losing a single model... That's not really congruent with how 40K works.

If I fought a professional boxer, tomorrow, I think we could fight ten times (assuming I lived that long), and I'd literally never hit the guy, at all, even once, and he'd knock me out every time. In some pursuits, it just works that way.

In 40K, you're going to kill some stuff, probably even whole units, just by showing up. Like, if you understand what the shooting phase is, at all, something is gonna die.

Bottom line, 40K assures out of the gate that the sides are signficantly evenly matched. The Codices are (I know, calm down) mostly balanced, you have the same points to work with, the same randomly generated numbers to deal with, etc. A large percentage of the factors in the game are deliberately balanced.

I believe that 40k is 33% luck, 33% list, 33% skill.

So yeah, there is an upper limit to skill, just like logically there is a limit to luck and to list matchups being either good or bad. However, I believe that the upper level of skill is very high. Difference in skill can be the same as the difference between a 6 land raider based blood angel army versus an opponent with nothing in their army that can hurt a land raider--aka potentially insurmountable barring extremes in the other 2 categories.

Now, the important thing to remember about skill is that, like luck, it is not consistant from game to game. Mission type, terrain, and your opponent all change, but whats more your own state of mind changes. What you remembered before you may not remember now, you may be more/less tired/hungry, ect.

Many people do seem to agree that a great player beats a bad player almost without fail, even with lists and luck being in flux. So if nothing else, this should tell you that skill plays a large role in determining results in 40k.

PS: the Boxer analogy does not really compare here, because in 40k we assume the armies at least have the same points. A professional boxer versus a non-boxer is so stacked that a proper 40k equivlent would be a 200 point kill team facing down a 3k apoc force with titans. The apoc force is bigger, stronger, faster, and has attacks (D weapons) that are impossible to duplicate in a 200 point kill team.

If your opponent doesnt know the rules for example, then yeah its possible to beat like your boxer example them even with points being equal, but you cant count that as a game either, because they cant make decisions on what to do without someone first at least telling them their units options.

I'd say the game is 40% luck, 40% list, 20% skill. Dice rolls can make or break the game as can your list, skill on the other hand? Well, I dunno, it'll make some difference sure, but if you can't roll to hit your target or if you don't have the right weapons to crack such and such unit it means nothing.

It depends on your codex and your list.

Some lists practically play themselves, and us such, those lists have a low skill ceiling. There is only so much you can do with a static gunline, for example, and the tactics are pretty set in stone, This makes it easier for average players to do as well as excelent players, with such lists. Other lists however, take much greater skill to use with grerat effectiveness.

Take, for example, a SaimHann bike list. If you build a list out of fluff, taking only units on bikes, Vypers, and your 3 heavy tanks, then you are forced to use your overpriced units in very creative and skillful ways, if you want to take on a solid tourney list. However, because your army is so mobile and has access to reserve tricks, you have a myriad of tactical options; this combined with the fragile nature of ths list allows for a much higher skill ceiling than a "stand-and-shoot" gunline.

40k being a is a very forgiving game when a player has bad luck, the situation is entirely recoverable when playing against someone less skilled. Against an equal opponent that doesn't make any more mistakes than you make luck is the tiebreaker. Against an opponent with superior skill in the game adding bad luck into the equation=compete catastrophe, it's probably going to result in getting tabled.

I'm going to break players down into 5 tiers because I like 5 tier systems.

Tier 5: Players with minimal grasp on tactics and list building that play soft lists with bad tactics. Sometimes it's new players that will improve, sometimes it's players that will always be bad players for various reasons such as ADD, the willfully ignorant, or the nice guy that is very noncompetitive and insists on playing a fluffy list while using fluffy tactics. Tier 5 players are actually pretty rare as most players quickly learn how to make a mean and competitive list and rapidly progress to tier 4, and anybody who stays in tier 5 for years has exceedingly good sportsmanship.

Tier 4: The player can make a competitive list, or download one from the internet, but still has a minimal grasp on tactics. Also in tier 4 is players will a good understanding of the game that insists on playing soft lists, or a tier 3 player will slum down in tier 4 by playing a soft list against unskilled players. Tier 4 players can generally walk all over tier 5 players. The bulk of 40k newbies are in tier 4, and it takes many players a while to get the good fundamental grasp of tactics to progress to tier 3.

Tier 3: These players know how to build a solid list and has a solid grasp of the game. Tier 4 players have little to no chance if the tier 3 player brings a competitive list. From this point on list building will no longer help because everybody tier 3 and above knows how to make a solid list. Tier 3 players tend to frequently win games a the LGS, but place bottom or middle of the pack in a tournament. Tier 3s can often keep up with tier 1 and 2 players if the tier 1/2 players slum it with a less competitive list, or at least provide an enjoyable game to tier 1 or tier 2 players that bring their A game before losing to the better player.

Tier 2 players are very skilled players using top tier lists, or tier 1 players using semi competitive lists. When they bring a good list they can regularly place top of the pack or upper middle of the pack at tournaments. From this point on everybody knows how to make a solid list, everybody has a very solid grasp of the game, so what actually determines who wins tents to be which player makes the most minor mistakes. If the player is a bad sportsman, always brings their toughest lists, and never helps lower tier players they probably are not going to find many games at a LGS after they terrorize the regulars by wiping the floor with every tier 3/4/5 player they meet. If they are a good sportsman they often have a 2nd or 3rd army that is less competitive than their tournament army, and are excellent mentors for newer players. Either way by tier 2 the character of a player starts to become very noticeable by the community.

Tier 1: Top tier players using top tier army lists. The only thing that can realistically stop these guys in a tournament is other tier 1 players. Player skill somewhat capped out at tier 2, the only difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is tier 1 players are even less likely to make a minor mistake. Unlike previous tier upgrades where the previous tier stood no real chance against the upper tier player tier 1 players can regularly lose to tier 2 players if the their 2 player had a good day, few if any mistakes, and a little luck, but the couple extra mistakes a tier 2 player tends to make is usually what costs them the game. Tier 1 players also tend to be well known, and usually have a good reputation as a nice guy that is a pillar of the 40k community, or a flaming WAAC Ahole.

The only strategy game I've ever seen where it takes more planning and thought setting up your army than playing it, and it often makes more sense to run halfway across the playing area and kick something than to shoot it with a gun. So no. I don't think it does. Chess? That's a skill ceiling. 40k? That's just who has the coolest stuff and isn't a complete idiot on how to use it.