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.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

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.

WINNER!!!!

The tanks were in cover, I had first turn, he stole the initiative, and he only had 4 or 5 lascannons on a landraider, razorbacks, etc.

I think it was a situation where most players would say I played it pretty smartly.

i'm not saying I played a perfect game, but when a player rolls a six to pen, a five to wreck, and I fail a 4+ cover save, twice, that's just bad luck.

Polonius wrote:The tanks were in cover, I had first turn, he stole the initiative, and he only had 4 or 5 lascannons on a landraider, razorbacks, etc.

I think it was a situation where most players would say I played it pretty smartly.

i'm not saying I played a perfect game, but when a player rolls a six to pen, a five to wreck, and I fail a 4+ cover save, twice, that's just bad luck.

Yeah I won't argue that is not bad luck in that case. I just think luck plays a smaller role in the game than some people like to believe. Army List has the biggest impact on how well you play I think.

Dashofpepper wrote: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.

So far anything you've said to support this *assertion* has more or less been of the form:

Dashofpepper wrote: Seriously. Cereal too.

Which is understandably not very convincing.

Mike, I can play too.

The only thing you've contributed to this discussion is

MiceMcSomething wrote:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf.

Entirely unattractive. Go clean up!

AgeOfEgos wrote:

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.

I concur

I won due to good luck against a more skilled player.
My VASSAL-league final game 2000p.

I was going against an eldar vet. We had free army choice. He knew I was IG vet and I knew he was eldar vet.
I brought my standard all comers list of 10th Keldonia, he brought a double jetseer council with holotank support (tailored).
We rolled killpoints.

This matchup should kill me.

He conceded bottom turn 3 with a totally crippled holo prism and some pathfinders remaining against I think 3 units (about 200p) as casualties on my side, he made no errors (at least none I can remember, he did what I expected/feared him to do), I made one minor.

I won because I had first turn, killed the first jetseers due to failing a rerollable morale check against LD10...
and the second got beaten up by regular guardsmen (no blobs!) in hand to hand, the holotanks went down like AV10 open topped and I tank shocked the jetbikes off the table.

My error was that I unnecessarily drove away from the falcon hatch, which had immobilized itself in diff terrain, so he could get out his firedragons, but they obviously failed to do anything killing against the chimeras with fusion guns as well as meltabombs...

The dice totally backfired on him.

This is an example how luck can indeed impact a game between 2 almost equal level players. But this is one of "those games" that happen 1x in more than 100 games.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mike, I can play too.

The only thing you've contributed to this discussion is

MiceMcSomething wrote:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf.

Entirely unattractive. Go clean up!

As sad as your post is (do mods even read these threads?) I'll clarify my initial (correct) position:

While I can point to actual contributions I have made to the thread, you can't point to a single defense of the assertion "There is no such thing as two equally skilled players playing a game of 40k equally well", which renders your (witty rejoinder? attempt to appear superior? seriously, what was that?) pretty pointless. So far, your response to anyone that thinks you're actually here for discussion that challenges your viewpoints ranges from a 2-3 sentence "You're bad K" all the way to posting a half-page batrep/anecdote that, due to a complete lack of fidelity and an, at best, questionable lack of objective analysis, fails to support any of your assertions (which range from "luck doesn't exist" to "ok it does but only when I am able to define ''skill'' as such a granular and nebulous thing that it can't possibly be controlled for" to the newest one, "two equally skilled people can't play a game of 40k equally if they exist at all") or address any of the points being discussed in the thread. I suppose your plan is just to shift the goalposts in this manner indefinitely, since once a cogent point comes up (like any of the early posts by ailaros, myself, jmurph, or redbeard) you ignore it, and attempt to mask what you're doing by calling someone else bad.

Is that the norm around here? Or did your repeated urgings of "I'm da greatest!" buy you enough goodwill on this forum that you've just lost the ability to understand what actual discourse looks like (if you ever understood in the first place)?, Either way you have yet to properly back up any assertions you've made since "Ailaros you have it exactly backwards."

@Mike: Have you hit the little yellow triangle on the posts of Dash that irk yous? Possibly doing that before bashing the mods would be a good idea?

-Nazdreg- wrote:
I brought my standard all comers list of 10th Keldonia, he brought a double jetseer council with holotank support (tailored).

Wow! You beat a player be taking your standard TAK list... and he brought tailored to the table. And you blame the dice

What I see from your stroy is that you brought the correct tools to allow each of these tings to happen and that he conceded because of it. More power to the TAK

(and maybe you're a better player than you think)

Mike, I can play too.

The only thing you've contributed to this discussion is

MiceMcSomething wrote:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf.

Entirely unattractive. Go clean up!

There's no need for comments like this, at all.

If you have come to an impasse, which is more than possible, then it's best just to agree to disagree, especially when you're effectively arguing over pretty much unquantifiable data. There's no need to descend to childish comments like this, please refrain from making similar in the future.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
While I can point to actual contributions I have made to the thread, you can't point to a single defense of the assertion "There is no such thing as two equally skilled players playing a game of 40k equally well",

Since what should be absolutely obvious is not, I'm going to leave you to your thing with this parting shot:

I don't NEED to prove that there are not two equally skilled players. Just like I don't need to prove that there aren't two identical snowflakes. Do you understand how hypotheses work? You don't prove that there is no proof, you prove that there is. I say that every human being is different from each other. I don't need to defend that assertion, its common sense.

There is no such thing as two people having identical thoughts or approaching something as complex in decision making as an entire game of 40k with the exact same skill, making the exact same level of tactical choices - either making the exact same caliber of mistakes, or absence of. Further, there is no scale to measure such decision-making on, nor the skill of an opponent, nor your own skill, nor the decisions you make in a game and weighing them against your skill - at which point you're left with "No two people are alike."

Instead of contributing a demand that I prove the lack of proof here, why don't you take the burden on yourself to counter my argument with "Here's why you're wrong" instead of "Prove it!"

My point is that you can't - because the situation doesn't exist. Which is why the original premise of this thread (not sure what iteration its in now) about equally skilled players is not a useful theory, because it describes a situation that cannot exist in order for it to be relevant.

Dashofpepper wrote:
There is no such thing as two people having identical thoughts or approaching something as complex in decision making as an entire game of 40k with the exact same skill, making the exact same level of tactical choices - either making the exact same caliber of mistakes, or absence of. Further, there is no scale to measure such decision-making on, nor the skill of an opponent, nor your own skill, nor the decisions you make in a game and weighing them against your skill - at which point you're left with "No two people are alike."

Over a large enough time period, I agree with you. As you narrow down the frame of reference, it is entirely possible for two people to play a game and make the same number of crucial mistakes. Games that come down to a single d6 roll on the last turn to determine the winner should be proof enough of this. If either player had made either one more, or one fewer, mistake, that roll would not have been necessary.

My point is that you can't - because the situation doesn't exist. Which is why the original premise of this thread (not sure what iteration its in now) about equally skilled players is not a useful theory, because it describes a situation that cannot exist in order for it to be relevant.

I feel sorry for people who cannot see that there is use in the theoretical, beyond what is immediately practical. The impact of many theories throughout history have not led to practical implications during the theorists lifetime. That doesn't mean they were never seen.

On a philosophical level, I believe the initial theory is useful. It isn't going to win anyone any games, but it does serve as somewhat of a reminder that balance is a good thing. If you can assume that continually improving one's game requires exponential effort, and you know that the returns on that effort will diminish at some point, you can then weigh the value of putting forth that effort, or choosing that other things in your life might be more meaningful. For some people, that extra win will always be worth whatever the cost happens to be. For others, perhaps not.

Wow! You beat a player be taking your standard TAK list... and he brought tailored to the table. And you blame the dice

What I see from your stroy is that you brought the correct tools to allow each of these tings to happen and that he conceded because of it. More power to the TAK

(and maybe you're a better player than you think)

Well... correct tools is easily said. If you consider (example) a single autocannon scout sentinel the "correct tool" to deal with 3 vendettas without getting annihilated, then you are correct.
I think I know quite well, what I can. And I am sure I played better games. I did not play bad, I did what I could, but he also was very good.

So, yes, I totally blame the dice.

I am with Dashs position in general, but I just wanted to play devils advocate against me in order to be objective.

Here is an idea for a little experiment.

Step 1) Play one full player turn. record everything that happens in that turn.

Step 2) Set Up the table again, and play that turn again. Make all of the same moves, and take all of the same shots. Record the results

Step 3) Repeat step 2 several times, and see how wide and how likely the variances are for how well a given turn can go.

svendrex, the variance is quite wide, but as I pointed out earlier, that doesn't necessarily detract from the skill. On the contrary, the ability to take all the variables into account and still take the actions that win one the game are what makes one a great player.

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't NEED to prove that there are not two equally skilled players

You actually do. For an example of someone attempting to prove their own assertions, look at the first post of this thread.

Ian Sturrock wrote:svendrex, the variance is quite wide, but as I pointed out earlier, that doesn't necessarily detract from the skill. On the contrary, the ability to take all the variables into account and still take the actions that win one the game are what makes one a great player.

Nobody is saying great players don't account for luck, we are discussing what effect luck has in games between equally skilled players.

svendrex wrote:Here is an idea for a little experiment.

Step 1) Play one full player turn. record everything that happens in that turn.

Step 2) Set Up the table again, and play that turn again. Make all of the same moves, and take all of the same shots. Record the results

Step 3) Repeat step 2 several times, and see how wide and how likely the variances are for how well a given turn can go.

That's actually a very good idea----even though it just shows the spectrum of dice rolls over a given turn----it would help get into 'your gut' on how much dice can affect the game. Excellent idea.

Svendrex, that is a brilliant idea.

I don't think you could have made your point any better.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't NEED to prove that there are not two equally skilled players

You actually do.

I'm going to abandon our conversation and label you hopeless at this point. There is also no proof that there are not two identical snowflakes. There is also no proof that there are not two people with the exact same number of hairs on their body.

When dealing with an infinitely variable and potentially infinitely sized subject group, you don't PROVE that every single one is different. Instead, you assert that they are all different based on observation, then attempt to prove that there exist two that are NOT different. if we can't even begin a conversation using the same language (English) and the same elementary school understanding of science, we can't talk to each other.

Dash is correct, you can't prove a negative.

Which is ultimately irrelavent, of course, because the theory does not require players to be of exactly equal skill level. You know, because it's about relative skill, not equal skill.

Also, I'd note that people are straying back into the dangerous term "mistake". A mistake implies that you deserve the failure you got. In reality, there are different combination of long and short odds, but it's the dice that determine failure or not, NOT the quality of the choices you make.

We've all had games where it seemed that the most determining factor was the luck of certain die rolls. I think what I'd challenge people do to is to look beyond just those games. It's not like luck is the only determining factor or it's not a determining factor at all. The way the die will roll always has some determination on the end result of the game.

After all, it doesn't matter how you play the odds if you never win, regardless of how short you made them. I'd encourage people to take a closer, more objective look at what their own dice did in any given game to see what kind of a factor luck was, even if it wasn't the primary one. The point isn't to say "well, if luck would have done this differently then I would have done that differently", but to take an honest look at how the dice actually affect the games you play.

Also, I'd note that people are straying back into the dangerous term "mistake". A mistake implies that you deserve the failure you got. In reality, there are different combination of long and short odds, but it's the dice that determine failure or not, NOT the quality of the choices you make.

We have to make a difference between "mistake" and "not playing the odds".

If I move away from a transport hatch so that the passengers can get out, it is a mistake, because I allow the opponent to roll dice in order to kill me. If I dont, nothing will happen and no dice will be rolled.

If I dont play the odds, it is not necessarily a mistake. Pot shots are not a mistake, because its no risk involved, but shooting on an unimportant AV13 instead of an important AV11 is a mistake. Regardless of the weapon.
But judging what is important and what is unimportant highly depends on the situation/battleplan relationship.

And being totally dependent on the odds is also a mistake.

Basic rule is:

situation -> procedure

1. if force balance is against you -> disengage as fast as possible (this does not mean scattering uncoordinated away from the event)
2. if force balance is about equal -> dont attack but hold a secure position (this does not mean dont move an inch, but it means dont abandon the ground you have secured)
3. if force balance is in your favour -> attack and support the attack with more material. (this does not mean abandon every other position and move up everything you have in order to achieve something)

Point 1 and 3 are obvious.

point 2 depends on the players style. If you tend to point 1 procedure you are cautious, if you tend to point 3 procedure you are confident. Both ways can lead to success or to failure. This is where luck comes into play.

Skill is the ability to bend the game mostly into situation 3. If skill level is equal most of the time the game will be in situation 2.

so it will result in 2 players holding a secure position. Unless luck gets extreme in ones favour it will be a draw. If luck explodes in one direction, the game situation will bend into 1 for the unlucky player and 3 for the lucky one. This will result in a victory of the player with being more lucky.

-Nazdreg- wrote:And being totally dependent on the odds is also a mistake.

My point is that you ARE totally dependent on the odds. No matter what decisions you make*, the end results are always determined by dice. It is foolish to believe that just because a decision is sound, or the odds are short, that it will be successful.

All skill is manipulating the odds you play, but success is determined by the odds, not the skill. The only real advantages to skill, then, are to play "smarter" odds, and to play MORE odds (by making sure your guns all have targets in any given turn, for example).

This makes a difference in a game, but less the closer in skill you are relative to your opponent (because as much as you're working to mitigate luck, your opponent is working to exploit it). In any case, given that success or failure of any given action is determined by dice, the end result of the game in general is predominantly thus determined. Unless, of course, the players are of grossly inequal skill.




* Yes, I know that moving in the movement phase doesn't require a die roll (over open ground). This issue has already been covered at length in previous pages.

MikeMcSomething, I gotta agree with Dash on the little argument you two are having (though not on his position in regards to Ailaros' premise).

Not a single one of us, or for that matter, any person on the globe can prove, even in the most remote fashion that two players are equally skilled at the game; further, they could not even prove that players differently skilled at the various aspects of the game came out to a "net skill", if you will, of equal.

Dash doesn't have to prove his point because his point, from virtually any view other than hardline "you must prove this or it doesn't exist" (which you seem to be taking), makes sense. The game is not perfectly balanced - the only way for that to be possible is if every army had a single build that comprised of the same units, options, and stats. Which it clearly doesn't. Therefore, inadequacies exist, which creates unbalanced play. Even if two players are perfectly matched in skill, the game itself will create a difference because of the different lists, armies, and rules involved in each.

But that's irrelevant anyway since, as Dash said, two equally skilled players does not exist.

I would like to note that Ailaros hasn't really given "proof" per se for his theory either. It's an opinion compiled from his experience with the game, analysis of what he feels the future holds for his career in 40K, and probably some introspection. There is little "proving" his theory is even correct, other than the fact of the relation skill and luck has on the game. But since there is no way to quantify such things reliably, it cannot truly be "proved".

I don't see how there is so much to discuss.

Any game that utilizes dice is going to have the factor of luck play an unquantifiable role in the outcome.

When looking at 40k in a strictly competitive point of view, it will always boil down to these four factors.

Strategy - List building and which army you utilize. Not all armies are equal, some armies are simply BETTER than others.

Terrain - Not all boards are going to provide an equal advantage to each player. Open boards favors ranged combat and speed; congested boards favor assault. So naturally, one side will benefit simply because the board is built to favor one player more than the other or because of the type of armies being utilized.

Tactics - How you utilize your army on the field once the game has started. Being able to anticipate your opponent's move, understand your strengths and weaknesses, attacking objectives, and all the other things that take place on the board.

Luck - Because action in this game is based on dice, it simply boils down to luck here. Each dice has a 1/6 chance to land on any side. You can take the best army, have the most optimized list in the world, and be the master of 40k tactical gameplay; but an unfortunate roll or a series of rolls can destroy you. You can mitigate luck to an extent, but it always plays a role in the outcome.

40k will never be a game that is strictly about one's skill do to the fact that there isn't a standardized board/set of boards that everyone has to play on and because luck is always an underlying factor in anything you do. It should also be mentioned though that because not all armies are balanced do to codex creep and shifting rules, you will never have a level playing field across the board. The game simply has too many factors that are either based on luck or go beyond the tactical level for it to ever be strictly about skill.

Some self-proclaimed best player in the world could be dismantled because he happened to roll too many 1's or a scatter dice pointed in the wrong direction. It may be 1 out of 100, but it could happen.

Radical wrote:Any game that utilizes dice is going to have the factor of luck play an unquantifiable role in the outcome.

Right, I think this is where people are getting tripped up. What variables influence the outcome of the game in what proportion are not quantifiable.

At no point am I going to be able to say "luck was 32.4% the reason the game went the way it did" or something like that. Because this whole issue is non-quantifiable, I'm not attempting to make quantified claims.

One does not need to have quantifiable data points in order to discuss something, or even to prove something. One can talk about vague terms, and can make useful dialogue about them. Economists talk about "rational self-interest", which is not slightly quantifiable (what percentage of their action was in rational self interest?). Likewise, political scientists talk about the international community in terms of the "balance of power" despite the fact that power is likewise non-quantifiable.

What I am saying is that there are odds, with random results, called luck, and that there is a human element to how those odds are played, called skill. While luck can be talked about quantifiably in general, statistics can't predict the results of any given die roll. Likewise skill completely defies quantization, as it's ultimately often down to little more than personal preference (how risky do I feel like being?). Just because these terms are not quantifiable doesn't mean they can't be discussed.

This theory is constructed with the understanding that, whatever luck and skill may be (as if I'd ever actually know), there must be a point where controlled variables are less determinant the more other variables are controlled for. You don't need to quantize skill for this idea to be true or not.

This thread will go on forever.....and ever.....and ever and the few of us that have expressed our opinions will just have to agree to disagree. I think there are three factors in every game you play, and that luck plays the least influence in most games.

1) Army List - you bring the wrong stuff you die easily and this has a huge impact on your game

2) Tactics - use cover saves, grab objectives, put things in reserves, use terrain to your advantage. I also put knowledge of game in tactics, that also helps

3) Dice rolls - you can have the best dice rolls in the game but if your Army List is inferior or heavily lacking a certain aspect and your tactics are horrible, you can still easily lose. Plus dice rolls are random and chaotic. You have have a terrible dice roll in the shooting phase, but totally make up for it in the assault phase, and still win.

You will always have the games where you make mistakes, or your opponent does. Simple things like forgetting to shoot your scouts, or perhaps moving out of cover too soon. You will have those games where dice rolls kill you, but those games should be fewer and far between than the average game.

I was earlier playing with python and wrote up a D6 generator. I output 100 random numbers several times between 1 and 6 and then averaged them. All the averages came out to 3s and 4s. However, luck in war gaming is not about rolling good or bad as much as it is rolling what you need when you need it.

@Ailaros

It is foolish to believe that just because a decision is sound, or the odds are short, that it will be successful.

Yes, this is a good advice for undisciplined gamers.
But it is also foolish to believe no matter what you do, the better dice will win the game. And you make the dice a bit prominent imho.
I know too well that dice can somehow change the game in a certain direction, and I do know that they determine the outcome of each individual specific encounter between two units that involves killing effort (apart from a specific situation where a unit under a mawloc cannot escape and the specific situation where a table edge is blocked).

But I refuse to believe, that they are the main indicator for success or failure from the perspective of the game as a whole and in general.

And in my opinion 40k is waay too often reduced to dice rolls.

All skill is manipulating the odds you play, but success is determined by the odds, not the skill.

This is, what I put to question. With all my heart.

I know that moving in the movement phase doesn't require a die roll (over open ground). This issue has already been covered at length in previous pages.

Yes, but as far as I read not the importance of it.
Physics in 40k lead to way more possibilities than dice outcomes. And thankfully are not changed by odds.

-Nazdreg- wrote:But I refuse to believe, that they are the main indicator for success or failure from the perspective of the game as a whole and in general.

It's a game where the outcome of things are determined by dice. What else determines success or failure, sheer force of will?

Crom wrote:luck plays the least influence in most games.

At no point have I seen a real argument for why this should be true.

This is the thing that's most frustrating to me over the past dozen pages. People seem to assert that luck is barely a factor, or that it is not a factor at all unless the players are literally even in skill. So far, the reasoning for this point of view is pure weight of assertion, or some other form of logical fallacy.

You can't ignore everything that's being said and simply say "...yeah, but it's wrong. Because I said so." and really be a positive contributor to anything.

Ailaros wrote:

Crom wrote:luck plays the least influence in most games.

At no point have I seen a real argument for why this should be true.

This is the thing that's most frustrating to me over the past dozen pages. People seem to assert that luck is barely a factor, or that it is not a factor at all unless the players are literally even in skill. So far, the reasoning for this point of view is pure weight of assertion, or some other form of logical fallacy.

You can't ignore everything that's being said and simply say "...yeah, but it's wrong. Because I said so." and really be a positive contributor to anything.

*sigh* I am not ignoring what is being said. I just think you are holding luck to a higher value than it really pans out to be. Having the right Army List is most crucial. The right tools for the right job. The overall ability to act and react accordingly to all situations relies on what tools you have to do so. Your tactics and strategy play into this. I know that my skyclaws, when charging will get 40 attacks in close combat. I know that rolling 40 dice in close combat is pretty much going to wipe out whatever other unit it hits, with some exceptions. 9 times out of 10, if I played it right the dice won't matter because I am rolling 40 of them. On occasion I may roll all 1s to hit or all 1s to wound, but that probability of me rolling all 1s is extremely high. As long as I know what I am assaulting with my skyclaws cannot really back fire that many attacks or survive I think I am going to do pretty well. I give them melta bombs and they assault a tank, that is 10 automatic hits(assuming it did not move) at rear armor with melta bombs. Your tank will be destroyed every time with 10 hits. Even if half my rolls are crap I am bound to get that roll that ends the target. I am putting odds in my favor. So, I am using war gear, army list, tactics and weighing my probabilities of success by giving myself enough dice rolls.

A good player with skill will use army list, war gear, tactics, timing and strategy to weigh their odds. My Eldar buddy uses bright lances and wraith guard to destroy tanks, as well as fire dragons. I don't field tanks against him anymore. They get destroyed the first turn or the turn they come in if in reserves. For the cost of a Land Raider I can field almost 2 full standard troop units with war gear that can take out other tanks and troops, and give me more dice to roll per a turn.

Plus there are so many things you do outside the game that do not require dice rolls that have huge impacts on what happens, makes my point even stronger. Building your army list, deploying, reserving, moving, using cover, etc. I read one of Dash's battle reports about a guy who reserved some walkers, and those turns the walkers weren't in, they were effectively doing nothing. I am going to run a little lab on dice rolls here:

Here are the results of 100 D6 rolls:

results 1: 6,6,2,5,4,6,3,5,2,3,6,1,4,4,4,3,4,3,4,1,2,1,4,5,6,2,2,5,6,3,5,6,1,1,6,3,3,6,6,6,6,5,2,3,5,3,4,4,1,1,4,5,5,1,3,2,2,3,6,4,3,3,4,4,4,6,1,3,1,5,4,3,2,6,3,4,6,4,6,4,6,4,2,1,4,2,1,6,2,2,1,2,5,3,2,4,6,6,3,1,+0 Total:363 Average: 3.63

set 2
5,1,6,3,3,6,3,1,1,1,5,1,1,2,1,1,4,4,1,4,3,5,6,6,3,4,2,6,1,2,5,1,2,1,6,2,2,2,1,5,2,5,6,6,6,4,3,1,1,6,3,4,2,6,1,6,4,1,4,4,4,3,3,5,4,3,4,5,4,2,5,5,5,6,5,4,5,6,1,1,6,3,2,1,3,1,5,6,1,3,6,5,6,5,2,3,2,2,5,4,+0 Total:345 Average: 3.45

set 3
5,3,2,1,2,2,2,3,6,4,1,6,4,2,3,1,2,6,1,3,4,6,2,5,1,2,2,6,4,6,4,2,6,6,5,4,5,3,3,3,4,5,6,6,3,3,1,6,1,6,6,2,4,6,4,6,1,1,2,3,6,4,3,3,5,6,3,6,5,3,2,2,5,3,5,3,3,5,1,6,4,1,4,6,2,4,3,2,6,5,6,3,4,3,4,1,1,2,2,2,+0 Total:358 Average 3.58

set 4
4,5,3,3,5,1,5,2,2,3,4,3,3,3,3,1,3,2,6,2,5,1,6,1,2,6,4,4,3,6,1,6,3,4,1,6,6,3,3,1,3,5,6,1,3,4,5,6,4,2,4,4,4,1,1,1,3,3,1,4,1,1,4,5,4,2,6,5,3,5,6,1,3,4,4,2,2,1,4,6,6,1,6,3,1,6,3,3,6,3,4,6,2,5,2,1,1,5,4,6,+0 Total:343 Average: 3.43

(the +0 means they were unmodified rolls)
Source for dice rolling: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm

Overall average of all 4 sets of a 100 D6 rolls come to 3.52. So going by my 400 D6 dice rolls of being 3+ which means on average things to save and hit on 3+ will most likely hit. So dice rolling as a whole will average out over time, and since luck is completely random your luck will vary. You can have great skill and a very high level of luck and have a plan work out and table someone in one turn. I also did not account for twin linked, preferred enemy, hatred, or any other skill/wargear/ability that allows rerolls. I just did 4 straight D6 x 100 rolls generated. Also rolling high and low is good and bad depending on the roll needed. Stat checks including Leadership need low rolls, to hit and wound and penetrate armor prefer high rolls.

I think that if a game comes down to dice rolls, it is a more rare occurrence of bad luck or there were some mistakes made that put dice rolls in a higher influence level than all other factors. I am not saying luck has little effect on the game, I am saying luck in average has little effect on a game's outcome that more factors are involved than just dice rolls. If it was just dice rolls why not just play Risk? A game of Risk is pure dice rolling, table top war gaming is no where near as reliant on dice rolls as a game like Risk.