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.

-Nazdreg- wrote:But still, luck does not get more important the more skilled you are.

No, that's not what the theory is saying...

Look at it another way. You go to a tournament. Your skill is a constant. Your opponent's skill changes from game to game.

Round one, you draw a ten-year-old opponent who is playing his very first 40k game with a borrowed army made up from the contents of a battleforce. It is not optimized, and the kid doesn't know the rules, even if it was.

Luck has almost nothing to do with who will win the game. (Although, in a more meta-sense, luck has everything to do with having you play this kid in the first round of a tournament). You, who has been playing for a few years, who posts on tactics threads online, know enough to bait this opponent with distractions, to throw up screens that he doesn't know how to avoid, and can probably use his lack of knowledge to ensure that he can't even get good shots on anything you have that's valuable. You can win this game without needing to roll the dice, because your opponent has very little skill.

Game two, you mess your pants cause you have to play DashOfPepper. Luck has very little to do with this game either. He sees through all your feints, ignores all your bluffs, and systematically destroys your army while rolling nothing higher than than a two.

Game three, with on massacre, and one massacred result, you face off against a player who has played about as long as you have. They also read dakka, and got advice from the army list forums, possibly even from the same posters who commented when you posted your list.

Do you think that luck (read as any variable outside the control of either player) will have an impact in this game? Will the matchup between their army and your army be a factor? Will winning first-turn choice matter? Will the terrain available on the table, and how it is laid out, impact the result?


Higher skill matters, because as your skill increases, fewer of your opponents will have the same level of skill, so you will be able to defeat more people without luck being a factor. This theory does not say that higher skill is pointless, or that higher skill = more luck. What it says is that when skill levels are equal, or nearly equal, that's when luck matters.

and even psychological warfare are parts of 40k, you must not play the same version I do either.

I dunno, I can't really get behind the psychological warfare, deception, feints and trickery angle of 40K. In my experience, it's not really about fooling the other guy, it's about understanding the most efficient way to beat him, then doing it.

In real life warfare, there are real things you can do to trick your enemy. You can make a bunch of fake inflatable tanks, and put them where is recon aircraft can see. You can drive trucks around in the desert so the sand plumes up and looks like lots of tanks. In 40K, he knows exactly how big your force is (the same size as his). He knows exactly what your models stats and capabilities are. There is extremely minimal room to "fool" anybody.

As far as the central point of this thread, I've started similar threads myself. I am always hearing about people (some folks seem to view DashOfPepper in this light), that can be anybody, any time, all the time, and not lose a model, and roll all 1s. I've never met such a person in real 40K life.

Some players are certainly better than others, will win with greater consistency, but I've never seen a player as good as some of the descriptions suggest.

For example, nobody is so good at 40K that they're going to beat a "good player" without losing a fair number of models doing it. Perhaps 25%...

Nobody is so good at 40K that they're going to go against a "bad beat" list, something that just happens to really work against their list, and win against a "good player."

Nobody is so good at 40K that they're going to have awful luck all game and still beat a "good player."

I don't think luck is ever the ONLY factor, but I agree with the core sentiment, which is that as players progress, the more list matchups (which is a form of luck) and dice rolls factor into the result.

40K is not just roulette. It's not just pure luck. There is a significant component of skill to it, and the best players will win much more often than even the "good players."

BUT... It's not chess. A grand master will beat me EVERY SINGLE TIME in chess. It's not basketball. An NBA caliber player will beat me EVERY SINGLE TIME in basketball.

I tend to think that if I played against the best 40K players in the world (and could take the list I wanted, without the limitation of having to paint it all up), I think I could beat those players (a guess) 20-30% of the time. I might even win more than 50% if I happened to choose a list that worked very well against theirs.

And that's not because I think I'm so great, it's just because it seems to me that luck factors much, much more prominently in 40K than it does in other competitions.

Phryxis, where do you live? If you lived nearby LA, I'd like to take you up on that.

One of the major differences I see behind chess and basketball compared to video games and 40k is accessibility. One of the things that's unfortunate about basketball is you need a certain level of athleticism to be able to compete.

Athleticism and talent are not skill, imo.

40k and video games are accessible because they have lower entry barriers...that means most anyone can play.

Oh about the chess thing...If I had 10 months to put you through a chess camp and you seriously studied and you knew which grand master you were playing against...I could get you about a 10-20% chance of winning. You'd still get owned, but out of 10 games you'd draw at least 5 of them.

TheRedArmy wrote:
Actually, the dice are everything. Yes, 40K gives several opportunities to help turn the luck in your favor. That doesn't mean it goes away. 3 Broadsides with Markerlight support (twin-linked BS5 shots) will almost certainly hit with all their attacks, but that doesn't mean they do. I can still miss with all of them. Despite setting up Markerlights and Broadsides for an ideal shot, I still miss. There's nothing to be done about it either, I just rolled bad. I don't see my actions, despite putting me in a good situation, doing much to make up for that Broadside missing.

Yes, but your chances and odds can be very much controlled in 40K. Unlike other gaming systems.

Except that if you rolled poorly, it's likely that either your units are dead (you can't control), their units are not dead (they can contest), or more likely, some combination of both. The only action in an objective match that could not be determined by dice is moving onto an objective out of terrain with no enemies around, granting you control. That's skill, but it's either an action your opponent anticipated (if closely skilled) or didn't (if large differences in skill are present). Either way, it's accounted for in the theory. If that's the reason you won the game, you skill overcame the luck. If not, then the luck still has a large factor, since the other objectives are likely being contested or controlled by the opponent, and you need to roll some dice to destroy/remove those units from those objectives.

Again, you can control your odds in 40K. I have a horde army of tons of units with no armor, I use cover and now have a 4+ save. So, I went from having no save at all to a 50% chance of saving against any attack with exception of those that ignore cover. I am controlling my odds, using them to my advantage.

I don't get where this idea of a game coming down to a few rolls means it was a bad game on your part. I just consider it an even match then. If, on turn 7, I've put myself in a position to win and I only need a few rolls to work in order for me to win, I consider that game a well-fought game, regardless of the mistakes I may have made. If I haven't been swept off the table by 7, I obviously did something right, and if I still have a chance to win, I'd say I did a fair bit right.

And yeah, sometimes luck is nice to you (like when the Tau beat my Sisters in CC - nice to my opponent), or bad to you (like when 2 Eldar Jetbikes with fortune and 4+ invulnerable saves die to dangerous terrain, of all things). But in the end the dice affect everything of real consequence in the game. I don't shoot without dice, I don't wound without dice, you don't save without dice. You move into cover, which is an act of skill. Whether or not the cover saves you from my guns is a matter of luck. No matter how skilled you are, you have to roll to succeed at almost anything. And if the dice don't feel like working with you, you'll fail at things you should succeed at (like penetrating armor 12 within Melta range - happened to me about 5 times in 3 turns, and about 12 shots). When you're good enough to overcome bad luck, the skill difference is large. If not, the skill difference is less. This is the basis of the theory.

Yes, I don't and never disagreed with this. I just started an Ork army. All my models are BS 2, which means 5+ on a D6 to hit. However, I built my army in a fashion where I am rolling (2250 points) over 100 shooting dice a turn, and with a 33% chance of getting a 5+ on a D6. I also know that almost all my army has a 6+ save, which means anything AP6 or greater is instant death on a wound. So I use cover to my advantage. I also load all the boyz up in trucks so they are on fast vehicles and can move flat out. Then I got big meks with KFF giving the vehicles a permanent obscurity save. Also in this build I got 30 bikes, all with twin linked big shootas I am heavily weighing my odds.

I never said dice rolls don't count, and a stream of bad luck can change a game. I am saying that in 40K you can heavily mitigate your luck with your Army List. Which is why I think your Army List is probably the number 1 factor if you win or lose, tactics play a close second and dice rolls come in third. I have had terrible dice rolls and still forced a draw, where in other gaming systems I would have lost big time. I use my Army List, my skill, the terrain, and everything else in my power to always give me the better odds on the dice. 9 times out of 10 the better odds usually pan out, and yes a stream of extreme bad luck can wipe out a lot of stuff. So, it is my opinion that since you can do all sorts of things to mitigate odds on dice and put them in your favor that dice rolls don't have as big as impact as Army List choice and tactics, because if you make really poor decisions in your Army List and on the table in the game, all the luck in the world probably won't save you.

No, that's not what the theory is saying...

Look at it another way. You go to a tournament. Your skill is a constant. Your opponent's skill changes from game to game.

Round one, you draw a ten-year-old opponent who is playing his very first 40k game with a borrowed army made up from the contents of a battleforce. It is not optimized, and the kid doesn't know the rules, even if it was.

Luck has almost nothing to do with who will win the game. (Although, in a more meta-sense, luck has everything to do with having you play this kid in the first round of a tournament). You, who has been playing for a few years, who posts on tactics threads online, know enough to bait this opponent with distractions, to throw up screens that he doesn't know how to avoid, and can probably use his lack of knowledge to ensure that he can't even get good shots on anything you have that's valuable. You can win this game without needing to roll the dice, because your opponent has very little skill.

Game two, you mess your pants cause you have to play DashOfPepper. Luck has very little to do with this game either. He sees through all your feints, ignores all your bluffs, and systematically destroys your army while rolling nothing higher than than a two.

Game three, with on massacre, and one massacred result, you face off against a player who has played about as long as you have. They also read dakka, and got advice from the army list forums, possibly even from the same posters who commented when you posted your list.

Do you think that luck (read as any variable outside the control of either player) will have an impact in this game? Will the matchup between their army and your army be a factor? Will winning first-turn choice matter? Will the terrain available on the table, and how it is laid out, impact the result?


Higher skill matters, because as your skill increases, fewer of your opponents will have the same level of skill, so you will be able to defeat more people without luck being a factor. This theory does not say that higher skill is pointless, or that higher skill = more luck. What it says is that when skill levels are equal, or nearly equal, that's when luck matters.

This is of course perfectly correct, and I never denied this. (Although there is a problem with the tournament pairing, because I would actually like to draw Dash, because my 10th wants revenge, and concerning luck being a factor in this game: Depends on the matchup. It will be a challenging game.)
The thing I don't like, is, that the wording was like:

Well, you just can get to a certain level of skill, and if you are almost there, it is pointless to improve, because luck is the bigger factor anyways.

That sounds a bit like:

Why do you want to improve at any form when you are dependant on luck?

And this is a statement I can not accept.

Redbeard wrote:
Game two, you mess your pants cause you have to play DashOfPepper. Luck has very little to do with this game either. He sees through all your feints, ignores all your bluffs, and systematically destroys your army while rolling nothing higher than than a two.

If my signature block wasn't already spoken for, this would be it. =p

I lost a game this weekend. Game 3 of a local RTT against a mechanized BA player who crowed that he had brought his list specifically to beat me. He won the roll to go first, I reserved up, and two hours later, he had slowplayed his way to victory with half my army only being on the board for one turn (and some of it still in reserves) before he put up his hands and said, "We don't have time for another turn!!"

I lost by two killpoints. I congratulated him, and found the whole thing kind of funny; doubly so because he registered on Dakka afterwards SPECIFICALLY to mail me and ask about the Nova Invitational - because beating me means he gets to play in the Invitational right? I had a good laugh about that. I explained what a GT was, where some are that are coming up, and what slow-playing is and why it might get him in trouble at a big event.

Look at the definitions the author utilizes:

LUCK

For the purpose of this theory, luck is a catchword for all of the uncontrollable variables in a game of 40k.

SKILL

Just as luck is the overarching idea of uncontrollable variables, so is skill the idea that represents all controllable variables.

Given that luck is the primary mover in the game, skill's role is entirely devoted to altering luck. Its role is predominantly to shorten your own odds of success, while lengthening the odds that your opponent succeeds.

Note the logical fallacy given above. The author defines what constitutes luck and what constitutes skill, and immediately under his definition of skill, he states that luck is “the primary mover in the game”. That is, he is defining luck to be the more important of the two.

The author goes on to say:

Skill allows you to change the odds of luck in an attempt to control the effect of luck.

Followed later by:

This means that luck is an independent variable of skill...

If skill modified luck, then luck must be a dependant variable of skill.

This theory, then, means that the more one advances in skill at playing 40k, the less they will see their games determined by their increase in skill, and the more that they will see their games determined by luck.

I have to disagree. Let's say that someone plays enough games (X) in a time period (Y) such that a statistical equilibrium is reached. This can be 100 games in a month or a million games in a second. If, over a series of time periods, the players win/loss percentage continues to increase, this increase would be attributed to skill and not to luck. Luck can't be controlled, skill can.

In the short tun, someone may have a very bad run of luck, but in the long run it should average out.

At a very highly competative level, very small differences in player skill make a very large difference. In many cases, I would expect that two top skilled players playing each other could point to a single moment in the game where the losing player made a poor decision, costing him the game.

Part of skill is risk management, which means understanding and accounting for the effects of luck. This means that they control luck, not that it controls them.

Chess is a game with no luck involved, and the best players are the most skilled.

Poker is a game with a high degree of luck, and the best players are the most skilled.

Simply because luck is a factor in a game like 40k doesn't make it the "prime mover".

Athleticism and talent are not skill, imo.

Well, is intellect, memory, attention span, etc. also not skill?

I'm just saying, it seems to me that any competition has a set of traits that, when a person possesses them, will predispose that person to success in that competition. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant how a person arrives at their results, whether it's genetic gifts or hard earned practice, winning is winning.

40k and video games are accessible because they have lower entry barriers...that means most anyone can play.

Anybody can play basketball, as well. Just because somebody is bad at it, that doesn't mean they can't play.

Oh about the chess thing...If I had 10 months to put you through a chess camp and you seriously studied and you knew which grand master you were playing against...I could get you about a 10-20% chance of winning.

I don't know enough about chess to dispute this, but I'd also point out that (as I'm sure you know), chess is generally played as a series of matches, so a couple draws, and even a win or two, is sorta like getting a lucky shot to go in against the NBA player. I'm sure I'd periodically be able to score on that player, but in the end the outcome will always be the same. He will win the final score.

I think that the outcome in 40K would be much more even.

Poker is a game with a high degree of luck, and the best players are the most skilled.

For me, this is exactly what it comes down to.

There are dice in 40K, and some rolls are extremely important (for example, roll for turn, mission type). This means that luck IS a factor. How big of a factor is it? That can be debated all day... But we know it's a factor, and if the two players are of similar skill levels, it's certainly a relevant factor.

In many cases, I would expect that two top skilled players playing each other could point to a single moment in the game where the losing player made a poor decision, costing him the game.

I'm sure in many cases this is true...

But, on the other hand, I'm sure everyone can point to things that happened in games that totally changed the game, and which could not have been predicted. I once had a guy assault a 150 point Sisters squad with about 350 points of Nobs coming out of a Battlewagon. I had made a movement error to even allow it to happen... And the Sisters held up, rolled ridiculous, and broke and swept the Orks. The other guy did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do, I made a MISTAKE, an it all went against him.

Everyone has these sorts of stories, and they happen more often than one might imagine they should.

I have a story that I hope will make a good contribution to this thread.

My Dark Eldar took on Dark Angels last night. Six units of terminators, mostly with TH/SS, a cyclone launcher in each unit, apothecary for the command squad, two units of three ravenwing attack bikes, a multi-melta bike in each (that split off).

Basically 2,000 points of terminators + 6 bikes + 2 multi-melta bikes.

Normally, I'd take on this challenge with something fluffy; my Necrons would enjoy this fight. However, my opponent is a GT player and has an apparently flawless record of beating the crap out of Dark Eldar. Pitched Battle, annihilation, he won the roll and elected to deploy and go first. I reserved everything. Now, it was a fun game, there were interesting moments, we both rolled pretty terrible, but I want to focus on one unit: My beastmasters.

My beast unit moved onto the board in line with a unit of 3 bikes. I did some visual guesstimation and it looked like I'd be able to get them with a 12" charge. They moved on 6", I ran them, and they only got 1". When I went to assault, they were LITERALLY 12.1" away from me. I couldn't make it. I asked my opponent, "Do you have mad skillz, or did you just get lucky?" He said that it was luck at this point.

Factors affecting the beasts here:

It was SKILL that determined where I put them on the table.
It was LUCK that determined that they only got to run 1".
It was luck AND skill that determined where my opponent's bikes were in relation to my ability to move on and assault them.

From where my beasts were...they were not in cover. They were also packed in closely and vulnerable to missile templates:

It was SKILL (or lack of it) that resulted in my beast unit being lumped together. I thought for sure that I would get the assault, and didn't bother spacing myself out to avoid getting nuked by missiles.
It was SKILL that determined where my beasts came onto the board - I didn't make it into assault, but the angle of attack and where I put them was a calculated move; there were only two terminator units with LOS to my beast unit to drop templates on them - itself a calculated move because I also had transports exposed to those two units.
It was SKILL that determined the interaction between his units and mine - when I moved the beastmasters onto the board, knowing that his terminators aren't fleet, I did some mental chess - if I go here, he's going to go there with this unit, do this action - my thought process *always* presumes that my opponent is going to make the action that is *least* favorable to me.
It was LUCK that determined that the interactions I was predicting between our units (assault, counterassault - one terminator unit making it and one not based on where I was going to assault, my ability to consolidate 1-2" away from his other terminators) didn't take place.


Fast Forward a Turn. As expected, my beast unit gets lit up by the two units of terminators I was expecting to light them up. I allocate 11 wounds with no cover saves the best that I can from the first unit. I take some casualties.

It was SKILL that made my opponent exploit a unit in the open without cover instead of shooting at something else.
It was LUCK that determined where the scatter dice would land and how many casualties it would cause.
It was SKILL that determined which casualties I removed from the clump - to minimize damage from the blast markers I was expecting to come in next - but now unable to hit as many models.

And fast forward back to my turn.

His bikes are still within potential assault range. I move up 6", spread out a bit, maximize assault coverage, but stay northerly - I want to assault in such a way that I can hit his unit without having to swing around towards his terminators and open myself up to an easier counterassault. I multi-assault his bikes: My beasts from one side, my baron from the other (not with the beasts), wipe out his bikes and consolidate 4".

It was SKILL that spread out my beasts to avoid next turn firing casualties - whether they would get fired on or not, I should have done that in the first place.
It was SKILL that ultimately was the deciding factor in where his bikes were in relation to my beasts - since he moved them there.
It was LUCK that determined my assault range with 2D6 to get to the bikes in the first place.
It was SKILL that placed my beasts at a range where a 3+ on either dice (x2 with beasts) would put me into assault - mitigating the impact of that luck.
It was LUCK that determined that I rolled enough dice to wound and kill his two bikes.
It was SKILL that put enough dice there to BE rolled that *not* killing those two bikes was a statistical improbability.
It was LUCK that determined that I got a 4" consolidate.
It was SKILL that used that 4" consolidate to spread out and make as unattractive of a shooting target (and attempted assault target) as possible.

This is the important part.

My opponent's turn. He moves a unit of terminators up to the edge of cover, doesn't shoot at my beasts. He's going to need 5+ to assault them because of my positioning. He rolls to assault, makes 6", gets into assault with me. Belial, Apothecary, +4 more terminators. I kill two terminators at I6 and I5, but then lose combat - I get away but he's within 6" of me, so I run off the board. Luck had very little to do with that.

It was LUCK that determined how many wounds I did to his terminators.
It was LUCK that determined that his Apothecary died instead of a TH/SS.
It was SKILL that got my full 6" reaction to still leave Belial + a terminator out of assault range - so that he only had two models to strike me back with.
It was LUCK that determined that he wounded me back three times.

At this point, some more chess moves took place in my head. I'm winning by two, I have three wounds to allocate. I can put all three on khymerae and take 4+ invulnerable saves - doing so will mean I probably pass 1-2, tie or win combat and stay locked. He'll have to make a fearless armour save, but its on a 2+. Then he'll pile in and Belial and the other terminator will get their attacks too. I'm still half in reserves. On the flip side, he can't chase me if I fail combat, and I'm far enough from the board edge not be unlikely to run off, and since I'm beasts, I've got a 3d6 run move. I piled into combat intentionally stacking up on my board edge side, so that I don't really have to run through him on my way out.

I chose to take those three wounds on two beastmasters and a razorwing flock. All three automatically die to thunderhammers.
It was SKILL that determined which models I lost. Beastmasters have little utility except leadership, but losing all three would be unfavorable if I try regrouping next turn. Losing a single razorwing flock stacked on another 5 wounds lost, making me lose by 7 when I could either would have won, or lost by 1 at worst.
It was LUCK that determined my run distance: 9" on 3D6 towards my table edge.
It was SKILL that did the odds in my head of this venture succeeding.
It was LUCK that determined my opponent's consolidate distance.

After all was said and done, I didn't run far enough and he was 5.8" away from me. Beginning of the next turn, I ran off the board. Bad luck all around, eh?

It was LUCK that primarily affected this unit negatively throughout the game.
It was SKILL that presented them as a credible threat to my opponent.
It was SKILL that determined that ultimately - whatever happened to my beast unit and however unlucky I got with them was irrelevant to the outcome of the game.
It was SKILL that weighed and decided that the beasts running off the board was preferable to his terminators being in combat with them.

At the start of my next turn, the beasts ran off the board. Then a raider full of wyches zipped up to them - the wyches got out the front to go assault some other terminators, and the haemonculi got out the back with his shattershard. He rolled a 1, 4 and 6. The 6 was for Belial. Poof, Belial vanished from the board. Trueborn blasters finished off the unit.

At the end of the game (annihilation), I won - my only lost killpoint was my beast unit, which I voluntarily ran off the board. Calculated risk.

This has been my point through this entire thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck dictates the actions of individual units. Skill makes the consequences of luck by and large irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luck dictates the actions of individual units. Skill makes the consequences of luck by and large irrelevant.

I'm not entirely sure I see that in your battle report...

I think that battle report is very illuminating, and if one had enough such reports it would help in assessing the value of luck vs. skill in the game, but I'm not sure I see it proving your point.

One thing I see a lot of, is people talking about "40K 101." Stuff like: knowing when you want to lose a combat and fall back (against Terminators, for example), when you want to spread out (against blasts), when it's ok to lose a unit, etc. etc.

These are all things you did in your game, and they exhibit game skill. But they're also stuff that people consider "fundamentals." The people who talk about the "fundamentals" always talk about the "advanced tactics" that come next, but they never really explain what those are. I tend to think that's because they don't know what they are, and they may not exist at all, but these guys need them to exist in order to rationalize their worldview of "super great players."

So, to me, what your battle report is showing is that a lot (or all) of the SKILL points of the game are pretty straightforward, and will be understood by any good player, while a lot of the LUCK points have major impact. For example, you rolled a 1 on your Fleet move for your Beasts. That could have cost you the whole unit, and it all came down to a roll that you had a 5/6 chance of getting done. You'd be foolish not to count on 5/6 odds, but if you roll that 1, you just took a major setback in the battle.

I don't care how skilled somebody is, if they do the statistically correct thing and it backfires on them, there's no accounting for that. If they have that happen several times in a game against a competent player who avoids major mistakes, they're probably going to lose. And having several key moments of bad luck is FAR from uncommon in 40K.

I'm not sure there are more advanced skills than what you'd call the fundamentals.

That doesn't mean that better players aren't more skilled. I think that better players simply do a better job of keeping track of more fundamentals. Knowing where each unit is, where each objective is, who can charge/multi-charge what, and what the odds of any given action are- all at the same time- is what a good 40k player needs to do.

In my personal experience, I think the best possible "training" for becoming a better 40k player is to go and play a game like Warmachine/Hordes where generally the game forces you to think 2-3 turns ahead and have most/all units working together to generate the greatest synergy in an over-arching plan. If you don't, you lose, and the game ends, immediately.

40k is so simplistic that even when you're losing, badly (for example, 0/5 objectives with your opponent on 3), you can feel like you're still playing the game and having fun rolling dice killing models. And that's fine, and not disparaging to 40k as a game system, but I really believe that it allows poorer players to stay poor players because they can still have fun while making 0 progress towards becoming a better gamer (or increasing their skill).

Phryxis wrote:
So, to me, what your battle report is showing is that a lot (or all) of the SKILL points of the game are pretty straightforward, and will be understood by any good player, while a lot of the LUCK points have major impact. For example, you rolled a 1 on your Fleet move for your Beasts. That could have cost you the whole unit, and it all came down to a roll that you had a 5/6 chance of getting done. You'd be foolish not to count on 5/6 odds, but if you roll that 1, you just took a major setback in the battle.
.

Then you're missing my point.

Those rolls, the consequences that entailed from them, and the factor that luck played in their success and failure was significant to that unit's performance. That unit's performance is insignificant to the battle. My point is that rolling a 1 and not getting the beasts into assault is NOT a major setback because a player's skill determines how important of a role luck has in your game. I didn't hinge my game on one unit and its ability to get into assault. Instead, that unit played a minor role in the overall battle, which *was* my point.

I took a single unit, and detailed what it did, why I had it do what it did; far from a battle report.

More importantly, you say that everything I talked about was fundamental skills. Bear in mind that I'm only talking about a single unit and its role in a complex operation.

Positioning that unit to draw fire away from vulnerable transports, while presenting a potentially unrewarding assault that pulls his unit towards a more threatening unit...in a situation that is win/likely win for me (either I kill terminators and lose a couple beasts and get away cleanly while subjecting him to devastating counterattack, or I kill terminators (or don't), and don't get away cleanly, and subject him to devastating counter-attack). Those beasts *positioned* me to acquire 3 killpoints regardless of their performance. Every unit in my army is working together like that, in the same "1-2 turns ahead" mentality.

Put another way, I am literally making my opponent's decisions for them. In a game against me, every decision you make - every move you make, every target you select and fire at...is one of three things:
1. What I expected you to do, in which case it is the least disadvantageous to me that I could make it.
2. What I didn't expect you to do because #1 would have been more beneficial to you in some strategic respect.
3. What I didn't expect you to do because I missed it, and therefore made a mistake.

If someone ever does something I'm NOT expecting, one of us made a mistake. If you think that's fundamental 40k skills - more power to you! I don't think that it is. In my experience (which is pretty widely sampled), better players get to the level of "The actions I'm taking will probably generate the best series of outcomes. They play good, solid poker: They play the cards in their hand.

In 40k, the good players play their opponents, and know what their opponent's cards are too.

sourclams wrote:In my personal experience, I think the best possible "training" for becoming a better 40k player is to go and play a game like Warmachine/Hordes where generally the game forces you to think 2-3 turns ahead and have most/all units working together to generate the greatest synergy in an over-arching plan. If you don't, you lose, and the game ends, immediately.

40k is so simplistic that even when you're losing, badly (for example, 0/5 objectives with your opponent on 3), you can feel like you're still playing the game and having fun rolling dice killing models. And that's fine, and not disparaging to 40k as a game system, but I really believe that it allows poorer players to stay poor players because they can still have fun while making 0 progress towards becoming a better gamer (or increasing their skill).

I think that's an absolutely terrific suggestion. Warmachine does force you to see combos and tit/tat options in future turns.


Also, generally speaking, the more game systems a player is exposed to----the better player he becomes.

scuddman wrote:Oh about the chess thing...If I had 10 months to put you through a chess camp and you seriously studied and you knew which grand master you were playing against...I could get you about a 10-20% chance of winning. You'd still get owned, but out of 10 games you'd draw at least 5 of them.

I can't stress how inaccurate this is. There is no way that a beginner could play against a GM after even 10 months of solid studying and stand a chance at that high of a draw rate. Maybe you could pull out one draw. Maybe.

I'm curious, what made you make that claim? You must be a player so I'm curious as to your rating.

Dash,

You took calculated risks, and I bet if you replayed the same game, with the same Army Lists and mission, you would not have had that issue. Rolling a 1 on your run roll (assuming you had fleet of foot to assault even if running) was a calculated risk you took, which had a very small margin of error. You had an 83% chance at success, so it was really just bad luck. However, given the context of the situation, you probably already knew this, and therefore it was your skill that dictated the decision. I think obviously if the situation had been different, say 20 inches away you would not have attempted such an action.

Luck and skill are not interchangeable in the sense that you obviously have common sense and enough skill to take a low risk move such as your failed assault. 99 times out of 100 that would probably pan out in your favor (or 83 times out of 100 since it is an 83% chance at success) and someone who had less skill would try an even higher risk maneuver. A lot of times when I win a game, it is not always because my tactics were superior but more so my opponent tried to get cute and tries to execute a risky move, and when that risky move failed I capitalize on it.

So, luck had an impact on your game in that instance. However, you took the measures and precautions to minimize your margin of error with luck. 40K is all about that. I cannot think of any other gaming system I have ever played that allowed to you weigh your odds on dice rolls as much as I have in 40K.

Now, had you moved with in 18 inches, then decided you were going to move via fleet of foot to try to assault you are banking on a 16% chance at success (1 out of 6) to roll that 6 to make that happen. Then I would consider that bush league type stuff and say that you were banking off ridiculous odds and hoping for the best of luck. If you pulled that 6 off and was able to assault 18 inches that turn with fleet of foot, then that would be epic luck.

Even though you claim that your dice rolls were horrid you will won by victory/kill points. So again, luck had somewhat an influence on the outcome but your tactical decisions ultimately won the game.

I think at this point I am just going to reiterate my opinion on the matter, and yes this is just an opinion. It is not the gospel. I also admit I have been out of the gaming circle for years but at one point in time played competitively over a wide variety of games. I even managed to win some tournaments, cash prizes, limited edition models, etc. in my time. I think my theory still stands though for all of these war games. Any war games that uses a points system, and you build an army list follows this hierarchy. The best decision you can make is in your army list, a close second is your on table skills and tactics, and last comes in dice rolls. Like I stated earlier. You can have the best dice rolls ever in 40K but with a crappy army list and poor tactics you probably still will not win many games. Army list and skills play into it more than dice rolls. Though on occasion, you will see dice rolls do some crazy stuff, and that is what makes the game fun. I am still competitive, but only mildly compared how I used to be. I used to have to win every game. Now that I am getting back into it, I play for fun and I constantly tweak my army list and try new stuff out. Sometimes it throws my opponent for a loop and I win, and other times I pay for my mistakes.

I think we all agree if skill is equal, then luck HAS to be the determining factor. Yes, as player skill gets closer to equal, luck also becomes a greater factor (but not the greatest).

However, the important part here, and I think this is the point Dash is trying to make, is that even as skill approaches equality (high level of play), skill is still far more important than luck. Sure, luck is more influential than it was at lower skill levels, but skill is what is largely determining the outcome of the game.

I've played in many serious tournaments in my day and most of those can be pinpointed to a tactical misstep. If dice "won the game," it was largely because a mistake was made to allow it to come down to that dice roll. Nevertheless, luck will always play some part. 10%, 20%? Who knows exactly. There's nothing you can do if all of your reserves come on turn 5, or you do actually only roll 1's for wounds / fail ALL your armor saves / whatever extreme you want to come up with.

Because I believe that even ONE tactical mistake will lose someone the game, skill is largely the determining factor even at high levels of play. Sure, if players were truly equal in skill, luck would be the only determinate. But in practice, that will NEVER happen and, thus, it is skill which determines our fates!

My point is that rolling a 1 and not getting the beasts into assault is NOT a major setback because a player's skill determines how important of a role luck has in your game.

I think I know what you're saying, I'm just not sure I find it all that convincing, and parts of it just aren't accurate.

For example, it doesn't matter how skilled you are, you can't just decide to take luck out of the game. You can play in such a fashion that you're prepared for back luck, and quickly mitigate its effects with smart play, but you can't just eliminate luck.

So, to paraphrase what I THINK you're saying, "good players can bounce back from bad luck." That, I can buy.

But it doesn't change my point, which is that luck is a significant factor in 40K. How much? Less than poker, but more than chess or basketball. IMO it's enough of a factor that it causes me to disbelieve the stories I hear of dominating players who never lose, and instead win every game by massacre.

I think we can agree that no matter how good a player somebody is, if they've got 200 points of models, and the other guy has 2000, they're probably going to get beaten. We might even agree that no matter how good a player somebody is, they're going to regularly lose to an "average player" when they've got 1500 points and the average player has 2000. Or, whatever, move the points around until it works for you.

So, now, take the Beastmasters. You had a 5/6 chance to get the assault with them, you rolled a 1. Let's pretend they then got wiped out. Let's pretend they were a 200 point unit. You're now looking at a 1800 vs 2000 point game. A couple other examples of early bad luck, and you could be looking at a 1500 vs 2000 point game.

Now, again, I understand that a great player is not going to let that bad luck fluster them, they're going to have a gameplan that can recover, and they're going to try to make a game of it... But the fact is, luck is a factor, and no amount of player skill will completely remove it as a factor.

More importantly, you say that everything I talked about was fundamental skills.

I didn't mean to disparage your abilities, I meant it more as Polonius does... That there really are no "advanced tactics," it's really just fundamental skills being carefully and thoroughly exercised.

The reason I think that's relevant is because I want to refute the notion that "great players" are doing something so brilliant that it can't really be explained to laymen, but it TOTALLY eliminates luck from the game. Great players aren't doing anything magic, they're just doing the same thing as average players, only more quickly, thoroughly and accurately.

Those beasts *positioned* me to acquire 3 killpoints regardless of their performance.

I think we all recognize that sacrifice of a unit is frequently an acceptable outcome if it leads to larger success. I'm not suggesting that you were just fumbling around, making mistakes with your models, I'm just trying to point out that eventually the game comes down to making rolls, and no matter how intelligently thought out your plans are, if your units simply don't do what they're supposed to do, it can't always be overcome.

Put another way, I am literally making my opponent's decisions for them.

I think I understand the sentiment. When I play the game, I try to guess what the other guy will do with each of his units, and to the extent that he doesn't do that, I consider it a failure/mistake on my part. I always assume that what he's going to do is use his army to the best advantage. I think that's along the lines of what you're saying.

All of that is fine.

But consider the role of dice in all of this. You're looking to set up a "devastating counter-attack" with the positioning your Beastmasters. That's the goal, and that's the result a great player gets, because they planned it that way. Only what happens when you lure the guy into your trap, counter-attack, and your assault unit loses combat and gets swept? The outcome is that your unit got punked, the same way it would (only more often) in the hands of a poor player. Only for that particular game, the dice have made your outcomes the same as that poor player.

However, the important part here, and I think this is the point Dash is trying to make, is that even as skill approaches equality (high level of play), skill is still far more important than luck.

Unfortunately, that's not really how math works. You said (and I fully agree) that in a game between two equal players, luck is the determining factor. It's really the only factor. So, as difference in skill approaches zero, impact of luck approaches infinity. And infinity is a big number. It's not like it's a non-factor and then BAM right when skill levels match up it pegs at infinity. It's going to diminish as the skill levels deviate from one another, but it won't ever go away completely.

We also know that even the best player will lose to the worst player if their luck is sufficiently bad (they roll all 1s), so luck is never NOT a factor. Chart it. Influence of luck is nonzero in all cases, it diminishes in proportion to the disparity in skill, and it's infinitely high when skills are equal. That strongly suggests that it remains a relevant variable in virtually all 40K games.

Because I believe that even ONE tactical mistake will lose someone the game, skill is largely the determining factor even at high levels of play.

I would agree that skill is going to be rewarded far more often than any other factor, but I would point out that "luck" comes up in a lot of ways. It's not just bad rolls. In a lot of ways, 40K has a certain "rocks-paper-scissor" element to it. A given army gets hot, people build lists to take it on, that list gets hot, etc. etc. etc. If you show up with a given list, and just happen to draw matches against exactly the types of armies your list is best against, you got lucky. Sure, you might also play well, but there might be another guy at the event, a guy who's actually a better player, who got bad beats every round, and ended up taking 5th.

It's not just about "will a C- player ever beat an A+ player?" It's also about "will the A+ player win ever single 32 man tourney when playing against A- players?" I'd say he won't. He won't even win half.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree then. You disbelieve the stories you hear of dominating players who win every game by massacre.....each of the links in my signature isn't a single batrep, its a link to the series of batreps for the tournament I'm batrepping. In virtually all the games that I win, I table my opponent.

Nuke 'em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

In virtually all the games that I win, I table my opponent.

Ok, but how many large events have you played at? And of those large events, how many did you take first at?

You could click on the links in his signature...

Dracos wrote:There is no way that a beginner could play against a GM after even 10 months of solid studying and stand a chance at that high of a draw rate.

ORLY?

Derren Brown snatched out an overall win when he played 9 pro or semi-pro chess players simultaneously:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1610

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5578835/14649389

Admittedly he kind of cheated on 8 of those matches. But he won the 9th due to getting some decent coaching against that specific opponent, according to most observers.

That article describes him cheating in every single game, and only 4 of 9 were GMs. Furthermore the 9th opponent was not a GM, and he won because he was being given his moves...

This holds no meaning, and has no parallels with teaching a beginner how to achieve draws in a match against a GM.

Also, this whole line is kinda OT, so I apologize for the digression

While repeating LUCK SKILL LUCK LUCK SKILL SKILL COMBO BREAKER must look like it's pretty authoritative, the argument "I rolled a 1 over here a couple times! And I didn't lose! So luck doesn't matter!" is not really convincing.

What we should see from this thread is two lists that optimally have a roughly 50% chance vs each other played by two equally skilled players on a tabletop (or vassal) that has terrain that was set up by a third party in a manner everyone can agree is fair, and then watch the players play 20 or 30 games over the course of a couple weeks. Vassal would be great for this, and the results would add alot more to the discussion than Dash attempting to use the weight of his own internet self-importance in lieu of actual data for the 30th time.

Phryxis wrote:

In virtually all the games that I win, I table my opponent.

Ok, but how many large events have you played at? And of those large events, how many did you take first at?

Lots. Most. What ChrisCP said.

*EDIT* And in case this is going to get snippety, I didn't say that I ALWAYS table EVERY opponent in EVERY Game.....I said that in the games that I *WIN* I pretty much always table my opponent.

I went 7-1 at the Nova Open for example. I didn't win. Obviously, because I lost a game. =p Actually, SVDM is a better example. I went 3-2 with my Orks; tabled three opponents, got tabled twice. Could I have *not* gotten tabled? Absolutely. But my playstyle dictates ignoring the potential for a tie and going for the massacre 100% of the time. It helps to massacre your opponent if you're PLAYING for the massacre. I've never tied a capture and control game, despite there only being two objectives on the board.

100% of my army is coming to get your objective. Or, 99.4% of it is; I might leave a gretchin squad camping my objective.....which is handily as far forward and centralized as I can get it so that outflankers and ambushers can't jump my gretchin without me having a turn to say something about it first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MikeMcSomething wrote:While repeating LUCK SKILL LUCK LUCK SKILL SKILL COMBO BREAKER must look like it's pretty authoritative, the argument "I rolled a 1 over here a couple times! And I didn't lose! So luck doesn't matter!" is not really convincing.

What we should see from this thread is two lists that optimally have a roughly 50% chance vs each other played by two equally skilled players on a tabletop (or vassal) that has terrain that was set up by a third party in a manner everyone can agree is fair, and then watch the players play 20 or 30 games over the course of a couple weeks. Vassal would be great for this, and the results would add alot more to the discussion than Dash attempting to use the weight of his own internet self-importance in lieu of actual data for the 30th time.

Dude. We were talking about a single unit, not an army.

And what YOU should be getting from this thread is that there *IS* no such thing as two equally skilled players who are going to perform equally in a game of 40k. For the 50th time. Seriously, read the thread. Seriously. Cereal too.

Yeah, the chess thing is kinda OT. Just demonstrating, in a conjuring-trick kind of way, that if you control off-table variables (who you're competing against, their opinions of you as some kind of mesmeric mastermind / tactical genius, etc.) you may be able to compensate somewhat for your opponent being technically more skilled than you are.

Can someone please cite me examples of games where a lower skilled opponent won out of pure luck? Where luck plays the largest role in winning and losing a game? Also, post your Army List of what you fielded and what you played against. I still think luck has the smallest impact of winning and losing, and tactics and army list make up the bulk of your odds.

**EDIT** I shouldn't post this early with out finishing my coffee, god awful grammar and spelling mistakes

Crom wrote:Can someone please cite me examples of games where a lower skilled opponent won out of pure luck?

Every game I've lost. Ever.

Crom wrote:Can someone please cite me examples of games where a lower skilled opponent won out of pure luck? Where luck plays the largest role in winning and losing a game? Also, post your Army List of what you fielded and what you played against. I still think luck has the smallest impact of winning and losing, and tactics and army list make up the bulk of your odds.

**EDIT** I shouldn't post this early with out finishing my coffee, god awful grammar and spelling mistakes

I'm a reasonably decent competitive player. I win small tournaments, and even against quality opponents I tend to pull my fair share.

I'm at a store tourny at Legions when I draw a new space wolf player. It's his fourth game of 40k, and I'm bringing my mech IG. On his first turn, with five lascannon shots, he destroys two Leman Russ executioners and a medusa. I pull a minor loss by whittling him down with my vets, but 1/3 of my army never did anything.

Polonius wrote:

Crom wrote:Can someone please cite me examples of games where a lower skilled opponent won out of pure luck? Where luck plays the largest role in winning and losing a game? Also, post your Army List of what you fielded and what you played against. I still think luck has the smallest impact of winning and losing, and tactics and army list make up the bulk of your odds.

**EDIT** I shouldn't post this early with out finishing my coffee, god awful grammar and spelling mistakes

I'm a reasonably decent competitive player. I win small tournaments, and even against quality opponents I tend to pull my fair share.

I'm at a store tourny at Legions when I draw a new space wolf player. It's his fourth game of 40k, and I'm bringing my mech IG. On his first turn, with five lascannon shots, he destroys two Leman Russ executioners and a medusa. I pull a minor loss by whittling him down with my vets, but 1/3 of my army never did anything.

OK, but lets look at the game here in question. There are things you could have done. Space Wolves are known for long fangs. I know because I play SW, and IMO 3x Long Fang squads are better and pack more punch than tanks. Since there are so many ways to kill tanks I tend to not field mine anymore, unless they are transports. So, you probably should have expected that. Plus Long Fangs can split their fire, which is huge against mechanized forces.

So, you could have deployed vehicles behind cover, or in reserves to draw out his fire or see what he has. So, his Army List had a huge impact here. Fielding all Lascanons can be a ballsy move because if you went all blobs of troops they would not be as effective. Which is why I usually go missile launchers so I can use frag and krak missiles. However, his choice was built for anti tank, so his Army List had a huge impact here.

Next, table position, terrain, deployment, etc all make up part of the tactics. He put himself in a position to shoot your tanks, in fact I take out tanks first turns all the time. Just ask my Eldar buddy, I demolish all his tanks first turn every game. He now puts them in reserve. So, tactics had a big play in this.

Last, dice rolls. I don't know the armor value of a Leman Russ off the top of my head but I assume FA is 14. Lascanon is STR 9, so he would need a 5 for glancing and a 6 for penetrating hits on the front armor. Assuming he fielded 3x units of 6 Long Fangs counting the Sarge, that is 15 attacks at tanks. BS is 4, so on a 3+ say 10 of them hit. On 10 dice you are going to get some 5s and 6s. Unless you get really bad rolls.