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.

Crom wrote:I feel either I am not expressing myself properly enough or people are not comprehending what I write.

The former.

Crom wrote: I am saying luck typically has the least amount of impact of what you can do in a game due to everything else you have done in your ability/experience to make sure your army wins. My whole counter argument to the OP is that I disagree with them that luck is a large of a factor as he is making it to be. Otherwise, I agree with him on almost everything else.

Here's where your position needs to be clarified.

We both agree that there is a skill component (let's lump all controllable factors in there - list building, deployment, movement, etc.), and that there is a luck component to the game (because, seriously, it uses dice).

The argument I'm trying to make is NOT "40k is more determined on luck than skill". My point is that "as skill becomes equal, it matters less, compared to other things (like luck) for any given game". There are certain circumstances where luck will clearly be more determinant (say, two gunline armies facing off over a board with sparse terrain), while there are definitely certain circumstances in which skill will be more determinant (my opponents plays the odds in such a way where he shoots meltaguns at my guardsmen and missile launchers at my russes).

The whole point of this excersize is not to say "which is more important in all of 40k?". The point is to look at luck relative to skill relative to any particular game of 40k you're playing.

Part of what this theory says is that if you are allowed to have free and total reign with your skill (where only your skill applies, and your opponent's doesn't), then skill will be much more relatively important than if you have two players who are both of nearly equal skill. But what about scenarios that aren't those two? That's what the rest of the theory is about.

At no point am I saying that skill is worthless, nor am I saying that there is no impact on the game as a whole of skill, nor of luck. What I'm saying is that when skill becomes more controlled for, it doesn't make as big of an impact as things which are not controlled for. If this is true (we can debate what it means for a variable to be "controlled" if you like), then skill has less of an impact the closer people become in skill level.

It also takes it one step further to say that skill advancement has diminishing return. If this is true, it means that the more skilled players become, the more controlled of a variable skill becomes the higher up you get.

Skill lets you play odds better, and playing better odds definitely helps you win more. In the end, though, it's the odds themselves that determine any given event, and, thus, the game as a whole, relative to skill.

Crom wrote:

Yes, very true. However in retrospect, you can have great dice rolls, and crappy tactics and a horrid army list and probably won't win many games either. So even if your dice rolls are fantastic, with no skill and not building a decent army make a larger impact. Also, like I said before 99 times out of 100 it works (or 86% on a dice roll of a 2+) out for you when you weigh the odds in your favor. Again, everything I have said and been repeating is being taken out of context. Luck can be a game changing factor, but most games if played well it is not the largest factor of a win loss.

Lets take your scenario and play it over 10 times a row, how many times do you think you'd win? Now, lets play that same scenario 100 times..lets see how many times you lose then. Bad dice rolls do happen, however, they don't always decide games, nor will they decide every game you ever play.

Let me get this straight, again, I never said luck is not a factor. I am saying luck typically has the least amount of impact of what you can do in a game due to everything else you have done in your ability/experience to make sure your army wins. My whole counter argument to the OP is that I disagree with them that luck is a large of a factor as he is making it to be. Otherwise, I agree with him on almost everything else.

I feel either I am not expressing myself properly enough or people are not comprehending what I write.

Woah, calm down . Conveying an idea via text can certainly be frustrating---but I'm not disparaging your opinion. In fact, I think we agree to a much greater degree than we disagree on the subject.

I do agree that army list and skill against lesser skilled/experience opponents will be a large factor. Hell, army list alone against inexperienced opponents can be a huge factor in games (Ork Nobz rush forward in a KFF Battlewagon against a Battleforce SM list---that isn't terribly complicated---the army list is a very strong factor).

Where I think we might disagree is; I think if you have two opponents that have equal experience playing 40K---relatively equal army lists in terms of competitiveness----one turn of bad dice rolling can certainly shift the game more than the army list/decisions made. Why? Because your opponent wouldn't be a skilled opponent if he was unable to take advantage of a horrible turn of rolling.

And those do happen----as I'm woe to admit.

@Age

wasn't mad perhaps a bit frustrated but only mildly. Apologies if it came off that way. I agree that bad dice rolls can be game changers, but that is the exception to the average game. Most likely in all your games you end up losing due to bad decisions over bad dice rolls. Luck is also a variance that can happen on both sides. Both sides can have good and/or bad dice rolls. I have a friend who is notorious for bad dice rolls, but he still beats me, even with his horrible dice rolls. He fails dangerous terrain tests so many times every game....and I actually have pretty decent dice rolls. I get killer armor and ward saves. I have take out units 2x the point cost on dice rolls, but that doesn't mean I automatically win every game when my dice are on fire.

@Ailaros

OK, lets do say you can quantify skill, and lets say you have two players who are about equal; or exactly equal. Luck is a factor, but ultimately, decision making is the largest factor. For every action there is a reaction. Every time you move, shoot, assault, go to cover, roll reserves etc, is an action I must act against. Every game I have ever played I have made mistakes. Should have moved that unit to cover, should have not put that unit in reserves, should have fired my shots at something different, ooops I forgot to move that guy on the flank, and so forth. Even if I did something which I thought was a good decision, it could have been a bad one ultimately. If you are my opponent and you see opportunity knocking and take it, and we are both equally skilled, dice rolls probably did not matter as you exploited my mistake.

Now, luck can be a game changing factor, but bigger picture, your actions speak louder than dice rolls. Movement can be devastating at times. I made a whole unit of harlequins totally useless for just over half a game because I saw them deployed, so I slowly retreaded while firing at them. All the dice rolls in the world won't save you from taking 30 saving throws on a single unit in one turn, or perhaps 20 a turn for 3 turns. That was a mistake, more so than it was good or bad dice rolling. I have done the same thing to my wood elf friend with his treeman. I marched a unit right up near the treeman blocking his charge to my elite units. He saw that I was sacrificing a unit that would not flee (steadfast + cold blooded) and tie his treeman up for possibly the entire game if dice rolling is good enough on my side. So dice is gonna play a factor but I know that treeman is going to probably tear up that unit. However, that unit is only 180 points total, and my other units will dominate the field with that model tied up. He saw my ruse, and did not bite the bait. Instead he took a LD test to march past them, directly behind them. His plan was to pincer me into the middle and attack from all sides as his light cav was flanking on the other side. The second I saw him do this I knew it was game over. I marched everything out of charging range on my turn, and his treeman needed two full turns to catch up all the while I wiped his units. No luck involved, we are easily equal skill.

Now, on the skill part. Assuming warhammer is just like anything else, the more you do it the better you get. So, skill is a sliding scale, and always increasing. However, just like any contest between two or more people, equally skilled doesn't mean it comes down to luck. It comes down to decision making. In certain situations there is an exception to the rule, and dice rolls will matter. Higher risk moves rely on dice rolls more heavily, and that is the risk you take when you make that action.

A good test to this is that if you lose a close game, replay it. Same mission, same army lists, and see how it pans out. Is it your dice rolls that always matter when two opponents are equally skilled? Looking back at multiple games being played you will find your actions are more of a factor than dice rolls. That only in the instance where the dice matter, is what it changes in favor of you or me, but overall bigger picture our actions put us into these situations. I am not saying luck can not determine a game, it has for me plenty of times. I am saying that when skill is not really a huge factor, and your opponent knows your army, knows the rules, and knows all the tactics you know, it is not dice rolls that decide the game it is decisions. On occasion a good decision can turn bad, hence the terminators failing saving throws example earlier, but that is the exception to my opinion of what determines a game.

I don't think I can be more clear than this. I think luck is a factor, but is not the deciding factor in a game versus two equally experienced players. Your actions and your opponents reactions have a bigger impact over dice rolls. When I try to envision dice rolling being the prime factor I see two equally skilled players squaring off and just rolling dice at each other. Table top war gaming is more fluid, and has many and more layers. You build a good army and make good decisions and weigh your odds you can beat someone with that over luck, and they can have all the luck in the world but if they make bad decisions they will eventually lose the game.

These are just my opinions of my experience war gaming. I had a good 8 year run before I quit for 15 years and played all sorts of players. Adults, kids, veterans, newbies, over powered army lists, under powered, tournaments, casual games, and so forth. I won a necromunda tournament when I was like 16 and I entered a day late. So I missed a whole day of leveling up my gang, and by the end of it I actually won the whole tournament. They prorated my points by giving me 80% of the average, so I came in being below average. It wasn't dice rolls, it was my decision making with building my gang and using them in game. I had a inferior gang compared to many, and was easily equally skilled as many of them there.

Now I am back into it, and while I am still learning and getting back into it, I still think my opinion on the theory holds. When you are a teenager and have all the free time in the world you can get really good at war gaming. This is just my approach to playing, this is my theory. I don't claim it to be unique or special, and I am not saying yours is wrong. I just disagree that when you are equal in skill dice rolls matter most. I think decisions matter most, and I think that it matters most at any skill level.

i agree with you but whats the skill level?

I guess I'm all in now, so I'll respond.

TehScat wrote:Its not that luck becomes more important, its that when the difference in skill between two players narrows to the point where they are equal, the only difference is luck. If you were playing against yourself, with the same list, then the outcome will be determined by luck, because neither one is better than the other. This may be the lucky one who gets first turn, or the one who's reserves arrive at an ideal time, or the one who just rolls saves really well. But you can't say you played better than yourself, and you can't say every time you played yourself that it would be a draw.

I simply disagree with this. One me may be better than the other me today, but not tomorrow, but again the next day. If I played myself, with the same list, it wouldn't necessarily come down to luck, but mostly how I and me played that particular game.

Disclaimer: I believe luck can decide a game of 40K, just not most games, or even most games between equally-skilled players.

Ailaros wrote: Right, I think this theory is in the same level of abstraction as statistics. Statistics will tell you what dice generally do, but they can not predict the outcome of any particular die roll.

Likewise, this theory would posit that a more skilled player playing a less skilled player (assuming they stayed static in skill level over time) would be more likely to win any given game, and be more likely to win more games over the long run. It does not, however, accurately predict the results of any one game.

A person who was 1% more skilled than another, over 100 games, would probably win one more than the other, but that has very little to say over who will win any given game between the two of them.

This is where, in my mind, your theory is breaking down. I thought your argument was that as players approach skill equality, luck is the most important factor. That last sentence seems to be arguing that over the long run, skill is more important between equally skilled players, but that any one game may be decided by luck. This is what (I interpret) Crom and Nazdreg to be arguing, and thats what I believe as well. Of course luck can decide a game in a game with dice, but there are so many factors in a game of 40K that skill is usually more important.

Ailaros wrote:

Crom wrote: How do you measure and quantify a player's skill?

I'm actually curious about this myself. If you're going to claim that skill is more important, perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by skill? You've made several references to examples of skill, but not to a general definition, nor how it relates to a theory in which skill relates to luck.

I'll try a general definition: Skill in 40K is a players ability to take into account all the factors of the game (some of which include mission/terrain/opponent (the tactical situation), army lists (strategy), and dice odds (statistics)) in order to make decisions that allow the player to use their army to prevail over the other. Probably incomplete, lets work on it.

Dictionary.com defines skill as 1.the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc. to do something well; 2. competent excellence in performance, expertness, dexterity; 3. a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience. 1 and 2 are most relevant to the discussion, as they define the attributes of a skilled person (40K player).

Ailaros wrote:40k is more and more reduced to a dice game the closer in skill people are.

This is where we are disagreeing. If you and I were close in skill, I may beat you today, you may beat me tomorrow, and sometimes the dice will decide, but in my opinion there are too many non-luck factors at play to make it THE deciding factor most games between us.

Ailaros wrote:And now to re-address yet again, two very common misconceptions that are being endlessly repeated here. Seriously, tell me how I can explain this more clearly so this stops coming up every page.

Crom wrote:Also, if you were able to quantify it, how often would you face someone with the same exact level of skill?

-Nazdreg- wrote:equal skill is almost never existing.

Eldar Own wrote:I see what the OP is getting at, and it's perfectly correct. However it's very unlikely that the factors of play and list building are going to be controlled.

murdog wrote: if skilled players minimize luck as a factor in success, how can the importance of luck to success be increasing as they gain skill?

This theory does NOT require players to be of equal skill level.

This theory does NOT require players to be of equal skill level.

This theory does NOT require players to be of equal skill level.

This theory is saying that AS players APPROACH skill equality, the skill variable becomes MORE controlled. At no point am I assuming the real world has ever had even a single match between opponents of equal skill level.

To put it another way, the MORE that players are UNEQUAL in skill the MORE that skill matters. Note that I'm also not assuming that there has ever even been a game of perfect inequality.

The whole point is to describe the relationship between skill and luck BETWEEN players who are perfectly equal and perfectly unequal.

This theory does NOT require players to be of equal skill level.

Ok, you've made your point that your theory does not require players to be of equal skill level, but one of the main posits is that as players get closer in skill level, luck becomes a larger factor than skill. You also say that "The whole point is to describe the relationship between skill and luck BETWEEN players who are perfectly equal and perfectly unequal", so forgive our confusion. Although you are not requiring it, you are considering it, because if you carry what you're saying through to its logical conclusion, are you not saying that equal skill = luck is the biggest factor? If anything, I think luck has the possibility of being a bigger factor than skill between vastly unequal opponents, as good luck would give the lesser-skilled player a better chance to win.

My quote there was not really addressed, and was taken out of context. If increasing your skill allows you to 'mitigate luck' or 'play the odds' better, it seems counter-intuitive to say that there is a ceiling of skill after which luck is the biggest factor.

Disclaimer: I believe luck can decide a game of 40K, just not most games, or even most games between equally-skilled players.

Ailaros wrote:

Crom wrote:I don't think you are quite grasping what I am saying, and have been this whole time. Luck is a factor, but it can be controlled, and mitigated.

I totally agree with you that skill allows you to mitigate luck. Full agreement. Skill lets you play the best odds, and as your odds change, skill helps.

The problem here is that YOU'RE missing one of the core tenants to this theory. While you are mitigating your luck, your opponent is exploiting it. While your are exploiting your opponent's luck, your opponent is mitigating it.

You're operating under the assumption that you don't have an opponent who is disrupting your plan. In this circumstance, it's the same as playing against a player of infinitely low player skill. Of COURSE in this circumstance, skill is going to be a big determining factor. I'm also saying that this circumstance will never exist, just like players of exactly equal skill.

You are looking at player skill in a vacuum, and are complaining that it doesn't hold up, when the theory itself is about things that are relative.

Ok, so the theory itself is about things that are relative. We agree that skill is related to luck in the context of 'playing the odds'. I would argue taking into account the consequences of good, average, and bad luck for any given die roll is also another way luck relates to skill. What I am saying is that I do not agree that luck gains in importance as the relative skill of two opponents gets closer to each other, because skill at 40K involves much more than just its relation to luck, or how one mitigates/exploits the good/bad luck of themselves/their opponent.

Disclaimer: I believe luck can decide a game of 40K, just not most games, or even most games between equally-skilled players.

Crom wrote:Luck can be a game changing factor, but most games if played well it is not the largest factor of a win loss.

Let me get this straight, again, I never said luck is not a factor. I am saying luck typically has the least amount of impact of what you can do in a game due to everything else you have done in your ability/experience to make sure your army wins. My whole counter argument to the OP is that I disagree with them that luck is a large of a factor as he is making it to be. Otherwise, I agree with him on almost everything else.

I feel either I am not expressing myself properly enough or people are not comprehending what I write.

I think you are expressing yourself properly, and I comprehend what you write. I agree with you and share your position.

Ailaros wrote:Here's where your position needs to be clarified.

We both agree that there is a skill component (let's lump all controllable factors in there - list building, deployment, movement, etc.), and that there is a luck component to the game (because, seriously, it uses dice).

The argument I'm trying to make is NOT "40k is more determined on luck than skill". My point is that "as skill becomes equal, it matters less, compared to other things (like luck) for any given game". There are certain circumstances where luck will clearly be more determinant (say, two gunline armies facing off over a board with sparse terrain), while there are definitely certain circumstances in which skill will be more determinant (my opponents plays the odds in such a way where he shoots meltaguns at my guardsmen and missile launchers at my russes).

The whole point of this excersize is not to say "which is more important in all of 40k?". The point is to look at luck relative to skill relative to any particular game of 40k you're playing.

Part of what this theory says is that if you are allowed to have free and total reign with your skill (where only your skill applies, and your opponent's doesn't), then skill will be much more relatively important than if you have two players who are both of nearly equal skill. But what about scenarios that aren't those two? That's what the rest of the theory is about.

At no point am I saying that skill is worthless, nor am I saying that there is no impact on the game as a whole of skill, nor of luck. What I'm saying is that when skill becomes more controlled for, it doesn't make as big of an impact as things which are not controlled for. If this is true (we can debate what it means for a variable to be "controlled" if you like), then skill has less of an impact the closer people become in skill level.

We agree that this is where the disagreement lies. You have not convinced me that "when skill becomes more controlled for, it doesn't make as big of an impact as things which are not controlled for." This is because, in my view, there are so many factors other than luck involved that in most games skill will still be the deciding factor, no matter the relative skill between opponents.

Disclaimer: I believe luck can decide a game of 40K, just not most games, or even most games between equally-skilled players.

Ailaros wrote:It also takes it one step further to say that skill advancement has diminishing return. If this is true, it means that the more skilled players become, the more controlled of a variable skill becomes the higher up you get.

Skill lets you play odds better, and playing better odds definitely helps you win more. In the end, though, it's the odds themselves that determine any given event, and, thus, the game as a whole, relative to skill.

You stated above that we are not to look at skill in a vacuum, but I suppose that referred to another context in which your theory operates. In any case, I repeat my criticism of this view: if "Skill [controlled variables] lets you play the odds [uncontrolled variables] better, and playing the better odds definitely helps you win more", then how does luck increase in importance?

Condensing Crom:

Crom wrote: I agree that bad dice rolls can be game changers, but that is the exception to the average game. OK, lets do say you can quantify skill, and lets say you have two players who are about equal; or exactly equal. Luck is a factor, but ultimately, decision making is the largest factor. Now, luck can be a game changing factor, but bigger picture, your actions speak louder than dice rolls.

Now, on the skill part. Assuming warhammer is just like anything else, the more you do it the better you get. So, skill is a sliding scale, and always increasing. However, just like any contest between two or more people, equally skilled doesn't mean it comes down to luck. It comes down to decision making. In certain situations there is an exception to the rule, and dice rolls will matter. Higher risk moves rely on dice rolls more heavily, and that is the risk you take when you make that action.

I am not saying luck can not determine a game, it has for me plenty of times. I am saying that when skill is not really a huge factor, and your opponent knows your army, knows the rules, and knows all the tactics you know, it is not dice rolls that decide the game it is decisions. On occasion a good decision can turn bad. I don't think I can be more clear than this. I think luck is a factor, but is not the deciding factor in a game versus two equally experienced players. Your actions and your opponents reactions have a bigger impact over dice rolls. When I try to envision dice rolling being the prime factor I see two equally skilled players squaring off and just rolling dice at each other. Table top war gaming is more fluid, and has many and more layers.

You build a good army and make good decisions and weigh your odds you can beat someone with that over luck, and they can have all the luck in the world but if they make bad decisions they will eventually lose the game. These are just my opinions of my experience war gaming. This is just my approach to playing, this is my theory. I don't claim it to be unique or special, and I am not saying yours is wrong. I just disagree that when you are equal in skill dice rolls matter most. I think decisions matter most, and I think that it matters most at any skill level.

I share these opinions and positions. Luck is never the most important factor, right up until the point that it is. I don't believe it is more important with narrow skill variance, or higher skill level. I can agree to disagree.

I can't believe I jumped into this thread after 20 pages. Couldn't resist!


Good job at spurring such a discussion, Ros! You've reminded me that the real reason I got into warhammer is because it is fun, and that it's just a game, one that luck will decide on occasion.

edited for grammer

edited to include dictionary definition of skill

Crom wrote:Lets take your scenario and play it over 10 times a row, how many times do you think you'd win? Now, lets play that same scenario 100 times..lets see how many times you lose then. Bad dice rolls do happen, however, they don't always decide games, nor will they decide every game you ever play.

Ailaros wrote:Likewise, this theory would posit that a more skilled player playing a less skilled player (assuming they stayed static in skill level over time) would be more likely to win any given game, and be more likely to win more games over the long run. It does not, however, accurately predict the results of any one game.

A person who was 1% more skilled than another, over 100 games, would probably win one more than the other, but that has very little to say over who will win any given game between the two of them.

You're on the same side. We all agree on a few things:

1) "Equal skill" is being taken out of context. Although identical twins may play against each other with identical lists somewhere in the world, in this thread we mean "where a difference of skill exists, but as it approaches equality" or, in more lamens terms, "as one person is less terrible than the other". Assuming equal skill is unreasonable, but its very easy to apply different degrees of skill and differences in perceived skill between players - we all know the herp-a-herp kid and we all know he's worse than everyone else.

2) Games are not determined by any single factor. Good dice won't make up for bad lists, good strategy and deployment won't make up for rolling all ones. Success is a combination of all contributing factors, and hence the victor in a battle is the culmination of two sets of contributing factors - the list, strategy, playstyle, luck, terrain, objectives, setting etc of (and or how it affects) both players. While situations exist where a game CAN be won entirely through good rolling, and lost entirely through bad rolling, the very core argument regarding luck states that outlying statistics such as these can be widely discounted from our observations - we've all had games where we rolled bad, but we've never had games where we failed every roll.

3) As sample size increases, statistical results approach the mean. This is 100% irrefutable maths, but it is hard to measure in this case. The theory I present is that if player A and player B battle once, twice, more times, then each battle can go either way. But if A and B battled 1000, 10000 times, then we would get a very clear indication of which player was "better" (list, strategy, etc) since luck would not be removed, but would be appropriately normalised. Once again, this is irrefutable, if you disagree then you are wrong, or arguing the same point and just confused. It is not viable to measure skill in this sense, because we cannot feasibly get every player in a tournament to play 1000 games every round to determine a true winner that is effectively luck-free.

4) The game's core mechanic is dice, and dice provide random numbers. Nothing can change this. You can account for every contingency in your list, make it perfect, play it perfectly, but the chance of losing is still PRESENT due to the dice. It may not be likely, and once again we cannot appropriately quantify it at all, but while a random element is in play, any result is possible. Its like reverse lotto - instead of an incredibly small chance to win millions of dollars, you have a small chance to lose what should be a one-sided game. It may never happen, but you may also never win lotto.

the whole point of the game is minimising the chance/luck effect of the game e.g. player one decides to put his 5 grunt squads at the back and thin the other players model before they get there. player two charges with his terminators and decides they will make a great distraction and flanks with scout snipers. player one has to hit and wound the terminators and hope they some how fail this 2+ armour save advantage he has and do some about those flanking snipers, he eventually will be boxed in and slaughtered whilst if he had used plasma, melta and snipers he would only have to go up against the 5+ invulnerable save. He would have less luck factor and more skill factor all because he didn't equip and move properly to secure any advantages.