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.

Because clearly you make all your armor saves...or I need a power weapon to kill the fist. Okay, <shrug> believe what you want.

Who's saying I make all my armor saves? What's the mystery here? I'm not saying anything we don't all know, but you're acting like it's crazy talk.

For a squad that's in close combat, a CC equipped Sarge is the most critical model. He's going to get assigned the least wounds, and if he is assigned a wound, it'll be the one he has the best save against. Obvious.

A Power Weapon is no more likely to wound than a Chainsword, so having a power weapon doesn't increase the number of wounds your squad creates, and thus it doesn't increase the odds of a wound being assigned to a Power Fist. Yet again, obvious.

Finally, given a battle of attrition, a Power First results in more wounds inflicted, increasing the odds of creating more wounds than the target squad has models, and thus forcing a wound to be assigned to the most critical model. Still more obviousness.

Why are we even arguing this?

Oh while I"m at it, power fist being any good against a venerable dreadnought or an ironclad is a myth in 5th.

Who said it was good? I said it's a threat to vehicles, TMCs, etc. I never mentioned a Ven Dread.

But if you want to talk about it, a small chance to kill the Dread is better than zero chance. Roughly infinitely better, if you do the math.

Did you watch the youtube video? You understand that the difference between a safe jump and a nonsafe jump is measured in pixels?

I did. As I understood it, it was less about distance, and more about timing. It was curiously interesting, but I don't see how it applies to the current discussion at all. Street Fighter strikes me as being a game with very, very little luck, much like basketball, football, etc. Just less large motor physicality, and more reflexes and hand/eye.

I used to play it back in the day, and I feel like I may have actually be dimly aware of the "safe jump" although not with the level of refinement the players seem to have today. It was all timing and muscle memory.

Don't you think that is monumentally harder than figuring out the distance between two points on a static table?

I think it's a totally different skillset. Sight measuring on a table is a methodical, deliberate process. Fighting games are much more about muscle memory and training in a "feel" for what's the right distance, timing, etc. You don't count pixels really, really fast, you just know the sequence of events that places you at the right distance, with the right timing, to do a certain move.

For example, if you knock a dude down, you end up the same distance away every time. Then you know how long to pause, how much to change distance, then you do the muscle memory for the jump. You're not really eyeballing things, you're just letting your hands do the pattern you've trained into them.

That's in reference to his opinion that being able to eyeball distances to within a quarter inch is an amazing talent.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not of the opinion that "it's an amazing talent."

I was more of the opinion that you appear think it's an amazing talent that you possess, and you're proud of it. I wasn't really judging it, so much as I felt like you wanted to me to be impressed by how you can mess with people's minds, etc. So I was just speaking about it in the same terms you were. You seem to be dismissing it now, saying anybody can do it, so I don't know what you want me to think...

I'm not really believing you, I'm not really disbelieving you. I'm not totally clear what you're even claiming you can do. I'd need to see it demonstrated, and honestly, I'd have to see how accurately I can estimate distances currently as a "control" for the whole experiment.

My answer is that it's not always better, and that it's too easy to trivialize the difference.

I think you're erecting a strawman. Do people really say "always better?" I'd say that the Power Fist is "better." That's not the same as "always better" that's more like "usually better." Clearly there are places you'd rather have a Power Weapon... But most of the time you'd rather have a Fist, there're many more situations where it helps.

Please understand me here: I fully get your point about a Power Weapon being better, one on one, than a Power Fist. The reason I'm contesting you here is because:

1) I don't think it's very hard for people to see that a Power Weapon beats a Power Fist one on one, so it's not an example of an amazing trick a brilliant player would hatch.
2) While it would be smart to set up your Power Weapon against his Power Fist, having the Power Weapon on the table in the first place isn't a great call, and thus even if you're making the smart call to get the PWeapon on the PFist, the only reason you're in the situation to make that call is because you made the wrong call to put it in your list.

And it's not like I don't field Power Weapons... In my SW list, because the Wolf Guard has a Power Fist already, I give the Grey Hunter a Power Weapon. It works better with his pistol, takes advantage of his I4, and the "Power Fist Insurance" is covered by the Wolf Guard (who is using a Combi-Melta, further making a Fist worth taking).

He deepstruck a unit of crisis suits into the bunker

This is a good example, because it gives an example of a cunning plan that surprised you in a legitimate way. That said, I notice two things: One is that he's gotten an edge on you through mastery of the rules. This is a pretty common way I see people get caught out, so it's not really "amazing" to me, but it's a legitimate strength of a top tier player. Second, the mission you're describing sounds like a nonstandard mission... Nonstandard missions are a great place for a smart player to show it, but at the same time, they're less playing 40K and more playing this odd mission, and adapting to it faster than their opponent.

A lot of players tried to imitate the army, but nobody could really get it to work the way he did.

It'd be really interesting to undertand what this player was doing. Without that detail, it's just a statement that there are great players. I'd really like to know what makes this guy so special.

I once went just shy of 3 years straight without losing a game of 40K at my local RT store

I had a similar experience, and it's part of why I'm skeptical about how amazing some people are supposed to be... My first army was Necrons, and I think I won my first dozen or so games with them. I was 12-0 to start my career, no real clue what I was doing. People would come over to ask me rules questions or for tips, like I had any idea what was going on. I'm sure they all thought I was some sort of superstar, but really I was just castling up my Necrons and winning because the Codex was fairly broken.

Actually the math for powerfists:

Against MEQ's: Fist beats the sword by .08 wounds

Against GEQ: Sword wins by about .20

Now, considering the fist costs 10 more points on average. Unless your scared of Dreads or MC's, the sword is better/more points efficient.

Unless your scared of Dreads or MC's, the sword is better/more points efficient.

Against GEq...

But I'm scared of Plague Marines, Bloodcrushers, Nob Bikers, ICs, and yes, also Dreads and MCs.

Plus I'm not scared of GEqs. Most things that the Power Weapon is better against are things that the basic Marine will deal with pretty quickly anyway.

Why are we talking about this, tho? Isn't it accepted that a Fist is widely preferred for a CC unit?

My friend used to be like that -- as far as he was concerned, it was always superior tactics, if he beat me, but when he started losing more and more, it must just be lousy dice...

As Gary Player put it (regarding golf, a far inferior game), "The more I practise, the luckier I am!"

Dashofpepper wrote:Competitive players hate the 40k rules the most because so many things are unclear, need clarification, countermand each other, or break other rules. Its hard to have an accepted system of gaming when there's so many things wrong with the basic ruleset.

. . . i.e., wishing 40k was more a game of skill than of luck and fun. I think you've missed my point and maybe also GW's. I suppose you could assume that GW writers are total tards with no idea of what competitive players think of their rules (and have never opened a single one of stelek's thousand letters to them) but I don't buy it. They have consistently refused to foster the kind of attitude that characterizes the competitive level of many other popular games (no need to give examples for fear of derailing thread) by continuing to intentionally publish fuzzy rules. This is different from saying there is no skill involved. Eidolon is right to bring up blackmoor in this thread--a sterling example of the 10% I was talking about earlier. But skill is also involved in Connect Four, Battleship, and Monopoly. Strangely, being able to regularly "thrash" people at these games does not generate the same kind of arrogance so reliably found among fans of 40k and WHFB.

Ian Sturrock wrote: it was always superior tactics, if he beat me, but when he started losing more and more, it must just be lousy dice...

Thanks for the example, Ian.

Does he look anything like this?

They have consistently refused to foster the kind of attitude that characterizes the competitive level of many other popular games (no need to give examples for fear of derailing thread) by continuing to intentionally publish fuzzy rules.

Yes, and this is an issue. Gamers by nature are a very competitive species. And while this only actually hurts competitive gamers almost all the community is competitive in the sense of wanting to win. I think a tight rule set and less codex creep would benefit everyone. Everytime a new dex comes out everyone groans, regardless of whether they play in events.

Strangely, being able to regularly "thrash" people at these games does not generate the same kind of arrogance so reliably found among fans of 40k and WHFB.

The only time I ever really see arrogance is with big fish in a little pond people. And in two ways. Either they simply think their LGS is a good representation of the overall skill and because they win they are the best. Some of them go on to compete and realize they arent that great but still enjoy it. They might even become more aware and helpful to others at their LGS. This is the real competitor in my mind. One who win or lose enjoys the competition. And while he might get frustrated with bad rules or bad rolling he gets over it once the game is over.

The kind you are thinking about is the one who doesnt want any competition he knows he cant regularly thrash. This douche bag will avoid playing games he knows wont be a stomping so he can stroke his ego. Kind of guy who only plays against beginners to average players, cries about cheese anytime he loses, never plays anyone he loses to twice, and avoid tournaments like the plague. I know a few of these guys, they are ok until they start losing and then they hate you forever. These guys rarely play in events. From what ive seen a lot of times they get thrashed by someone in front of their LGS and cant stand the damage to their ego. But there is a difference between competitive player and aggressive player.

Does he look anything like this?

Add acne, pit stains, and a badly painted army and we have a winner.

The power fist thing is a classic logical fallacy. To measure its true effectiveness, you also need to mathhammer all the times it doesn't get to go because of volume of attacks or fire. You're still looking at it the wrong way.

I said, "The crafty players will extrapolate and understand the deeper meaning of what I'm trying to say."

But it's fine if you don't get it.

I think the fist is taken because it lets you hurt more types of units. The sword might generally be better against basic infantry, but if that squad gets charged by a dread or MC its toast.

Far as im concerned it being more effective against more things makes it better. Not saying swords dont have uses, but they generally arent as good for lack of utility.

Who's saying I make all my armor saves? What's the mystery here? I'm not saying anything we don't all know, but you're acting like it's crazy talk

For a squad that's in close combat, a CC equipped Sarge is the most critical model. He's going to get assigned the least wounds, and if he is assigned a wound, it'll be the one he has the best save against. Obvious.

But does your sergeant always make that save? Does he get to go if he fails that save? What if every wound I do is a power weapon wound? Maybe there's more than one situation to nullify a power fist. Or maybe its crazy talk.

A Power Weapon is no more likely to wound than a Chainsword, so having a power weapon doesn't increase the number of wounds your squad creates, and thus it doesn't increase the odds of a wound being assigned to a Power Fist. Yet again, obvious.

This is wrong by the way. 9 marines produce 18 attacks and the sergeant produces 4 attacks on the charge on initiative step 4. The wound allocation happens by initiative step. A squad with a power fist only produces 18 attacks on the charge because the fist is on a different initiative. Minor, but just sayzin.

Finally, given a battle of attrition, a Power First results in more wounds inflicted, increasing the odds of creating more wounds than the target squad has models, and thus forcing a wound to be assigned to the most critical model. Still more obviousness.

Why are we even arguing this?

Because if I have a powerweapon I'm not engaging in a battle of attrition. You're still missing the point. That's not where the power weapon is better. That's not even the correct way to use tactical marines. Tactical marines are shooty, but can do hth in a pinch if they have an advantage in numbers.
Point for point, pound for pound, tactical marines can't beat things in hth. Giving them a powerfist gives them the illusion that it's a help against the things out there they can't normally deal with. To be honest, they still can't deal with them, power fist or no. But marines die in a game. They don't stay at 10 models. And people combat squad, making them 5 man squads with fists.

If I have a power weapon, I play different than if I had a fist. That's seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Oh while I"m at it, power fist being any good against a venerable dreadnought or an ironclad is a myth in 5th
Who said it was good? I said it's a threat to vehicles, TMCs, etc. I never mentioned a Ven Dread.

But if you want to talk about it, a small chance to kill the Dread is better than zero chance. Roughly infinitely better, if you do the math.

What's more likely to happen is that you'll think it's okay for a dreadnought (which happens to be a vehicle by the way) to get into hth with a tactical because there's fist insurance. And then they'll be another player on the message board complaining about how his dice were bad at killing a dreadnought. I prefer a small chance over no chance because it makes people play different. THey don't realize it's still a bad idea, even if the chance is small, so they willingly take more risk. It's more intuitive that something is bad if the difference is absolute and in black and white.

By the way, you mentioned monstrous creatures. You think it's any good against a hive tyrant with lash whip? You get reduced to 1 attack against a hive tyrant, and you still have to roll to hit.

Did you watch the youtube video? You understand that the difference between a safe jump and a nonsafe jump is measured in pixels.

.I did. As I understood it, it was less about distance, and more about timing. It was curiously interesting, but I don't see how it applies to the current discussion at all. Street Fighter strikes me as being a game with very, very little luck, much like basketball, football, etc. Just less large motor physicality, and more reflexes and hand/eye.

I used to play it back in the day, and I feel like I may have actually be dimly aware of the "safe jump" although not with the level of refinement the players seem to have today. It was all timing and muscle memory.

I think it's a totally different skillset. Sight measuring on a table is a methodical, deliberate process. Fighting games are much more about muscle memory and training in a "feel" for what's the right distance, timing, etc. You don't count pixels really, really fast, you just know the sequence of events that places you at the right distance, with the right timing, to do a certain move.

For example, if you knock a dude down, you end up the same distance away every time. Then you know how long to pause, how much to change distance, then you do the muscle memory for the jump. You're not really eyeballing things, you're just letting your hands do the pattern you've trained into them.

That's in reference to his opinion that being able to eyeball distances to within a quarter inch is an amazing talent.

I could go into more detail about it, but I routinely move just slightly forward or backward because I know I'm not at the right distance to do the move, be it a crossup or safe jump. You talk about it being intuitive, but it feels the same when I'm playing 40k. I intuitively know if something is in range or not because I worked on it.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not of the opinion that "it's an amazing talent."

I was more of the opinion that you appear think it's an amazing talent that you possess, and you're proud of it. I wasn't really judging it, so much as I felt like you wanted to me to be impressed by how you can mess with people's minds, etc. So I was just speaking about it in the same terms you were. You seem to be dismissing it now, saying anybody can do it, so I don't know what you want me to think...

I'm not really believing you, I'm not really disbelieving you. I'm not totally clear what you're even claiming you can do. I'd need to see it demonstrated, and honestly, I'd have to see how accurately I can estimate distances currently as a "control" for the whole experiment.

You asked what people were doing, and I gave up an insight, but you kinda dismissed it out of hand. I was pointing out that this is something you can manipulate as an example of why this game is not about luck, but you didn't seem convinced.

My answer is that it's not always better, and that it's too easy to trivialize the difference.

I think you're erecting a strawman. Do people really say "always better?" I'd say that the Power Fist is "better." That's not the same as "always better" that's more like "usually better." Clearly there are places you'd rather have a Power Weapon... But most of the time you'd rather have a Fist, there're many more situations where it helps.

Please understand me here: I fully get your point about a Power Weapon being better, one on one, than a Power Fist. The reason I'm contesting you here is because:

1) I don't think it's very hard for people to see that a Power Weapon beats a Power Fist one on one, so it's not an example of an amazing trick a brilliant player would hatch.
2) While it would be smart to set up your Power Weapon against his Power Fist, having the Power Weapon on the table in the first place isn't a great call, and thus even if you're making the smart call to get the PWeapon on the PFist, the only reason you're in the situation to make that call is because you made the wrong call to put it in your list.

You just said that the power fist is only situationally better. If you're saying that it's a wrong call to put it in your list because the fist is better, isn't that the same as saying it's "always better?" Think about that. You are the one saying the power weapon is worthless, not me.

You don't get my point, because you're thinking I'm only talking about one on one. You need to extrapolate further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying you shouldn't take the fist. I'm saying you should understand the difference between a fist and something else. I'm also saying that people dismiss it's weaknesses to readily.

Classicly people liked the hidden fist because it allowed you to do things the squads otherwise couldn't do. In 5th, the game designers recognized this and not only nerfed the power fist, but made units built for hth more resilient to the power fist. THis applies to walkers, land raiders, monstrous creatures, etc, etc. The only place the fist really got better was against vehicles with a weak rear armor, like the wave serpent or rhino.

My dice always roll 6's.

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:My dice always roll 6's.

And thats the thread

Eidolon wrote:But there is a difference between competitive player and aggressive player.

I agree that this is a useful distinction and one that I glossed over.

Manchu wrote:

Eidolon wrote:But there is a difference between competitive player and aggressive player.

I agree that this is a useful distinction and one that I glossed over.

I think the cause behind it is why the people play competitively in the first place. Both want a challenge, but I think a lot of the guys who see winning events constantly are those who play for that challenge. They seem to have a respect for others on that level too. You can always say "well I would have won but I lost to so and so, but hes really good so it was a good game. And id have rather lost to him then anyone else."

Eidolon wrote:I think the fist is taken because it lets you hurt more types of units. The sword might generally be better against basic infantry, but if that squad gets charged by a dread or MC its toast.

Far as im concerned it being more effective against more things makes it better. Not saying swords dont have uses, but they generally arent as good for lack of utility.

You know what I find the most amazing?

That folks are discussing which option is better when they are at the very best, a less optimal choice.

Power weapons or power fists on tac sgts, while not fail, certainly are not very good.

YMMV.

imweasel wrote:

Eidolon wrote:I think the fist is taken because it lets you hurt more types of units. The sword might generally be better against basic infantry, but if that squad gets charged by a dread or MC its toast.

Far as im concerned it being more effective against more things makes it better. Not saying swords dont have uses, but they generally arent as good for lack of utility.

You know what I find the most amazing?

That folks are discussing which option is better when they are at the very best, a less optimal choice.

Power weapons or power fists on tac sgts, while not fail, certainly are not very good.

YMMV.

Oh jesus, now you have just opened a whole new can of worms.

Basically I see it working in 3 ways.

Fist-gives you a bit of insurance against all kinds of stuff in hand to hand.
sword-less versatile but means you are more likely to attack.
none-save points.

Its a flavor thing really. Which choice you make doesnt make you a good player, its just how you use it. With that said this fist/sword argument is stupid, and is detracting from the original point of the thread.

I'd like to see more of it. If there is more either of you have to say, could we go to a new thread?

imweasel wrote:YMMV.

This.

As for the main discussion, I think 40k skill suffers from a serious case of Amdahl's Law.

Gornall wrote:

imweasel wrote:YMMV.

This.

As for the main discussion, I think 40k skill suffers from a serious case of Amdahl's Law.

I think you mean Godwins law

LOL

+1 internets for you.

What's more likely to happen is that you'll think it's okay for a dreadnought (which happens to be a vehicle by the way) to get into hth with a tactical because there's fist insurance.

You're suggesting that a listbuilding choice would cause me to stop understanding Mathhammer. You cherry pick the extremely resilinet Venerable Dread, then claim that taking a Power Fist would cause me to lose all sense of logic, and attack it in HTH.

This is not a very good argument.

If you'd like to consider what I actually said, you'll recall that I referred to threatening Dreads and TMCs.

Take a normal Dread. He's AV12, WS4. A Sarge with a Fist has about a 17% chance to Pen him with an attack. Let's say the Sarge's squad charges the Dread. He gets 3A on the charge, and is about 42% likely to get at least one Pen that turn. After his 2A in the next round, it's closer to 60% likely.

By comparison, the Dread has 2A per round, which will kill about .83 Marines per round. At 14 points per Marine, the Dread needs about 9 turns to even earn his points back, by which time it's almost certainly dead.

The Power Fist makes the Marine unit more of a threat to the Dread than the Dread is to the unit. That's a non-trivial benefit.

You think it's any good against a hive tyrant with lash whip? You get reduced to 1 attack against a hive tyrant, and you still have to roll to hit.

Still far better than a Power Weapon against a T6 Hive Tyrant. What are you trying to accomplish by saying this? You're thinking of odd edge conditions that don't really even prove your point. I'm still taking at least one Fist in any CC unit. Yes there will be times I'd rather have something else. Those will be MUCH rarer than the times I'm glad I have it.

I intuitively know if something is in range or not because I worked on it.

Ok, and what did you do to "work on it?"

I was pointing out that this is something you can manipulate as an example of why this game is not about luck, but you didn't seem convinced.

I never said it was about luck, I just said that luck is a significant influence on the game.

I'm also fully convinced that being able to make every single sight measurement in a game with perfect accuracy is a major advantage. I just don't really know what to do with your odd myseriousness around this.

You don't get my point, because you're thinking I'm only talking about one on one.

I don't think you're talking about one on one.

At first I did, because that's what you seemed to be talking about. But then I read more of your posts, and I'm thinking that you're deliberately trying not to say anything too specific. I think you're just fast talking, obfuscating, and trying to make generally negative statements about my understanding so it looks like I'm stupid, while simultaneously talking about cool stuff you can do so that you look super cool.

"It's about planting a seed of doubt, thinking outside the box, leveraging synergies. You need to see into the future. When I do that in games, people don't even know what hit them. You're not getting it."

It's really not very meaningful.

It seems to me like you're being deliberately vague and mysterious, trying to get people to beg you for your wisdom of flawless sight measurement.

Classicly people liked the hidden fist because it allowed you to do things the squads otherwise couldn't do. In 5th, the game designers recognized this and not only nerfed the power fist

And how has this changed? You can take one million billion S4 Power Weapon attacks on an AV12 Dread. You will still never kill it. You can take ONE S8 Power fist attack on a Dread, and you'll kill it about 6% of the time.

Let's not forget, in previous Editions Marines could get a 15 point Power Fist and still get +1A for their Bolt Pistol. You can nerf that sort of brokenness a LOT and still have it be a very useful weapon.

Power weapons or power fists on tac sgts, while not fail, certainly are not very good.

I'm not really thinking about Tactical squads. The example of Power Weapon vs Power Fist was brought up. It wasn't really specified what squad was being discussed. To me, the discussion encompasses any situation where a Fist type weapon might be taken (a Power Klaw for example). At some point in the game, be it an Assault Squad, a Wolf Guard leading a squad, the Skull Champ in a unit of Berserkers, you're going to tool somebody up with a CC weapon. If they're hidden, and they can take a Fist, then they should take a Fist with very, very few exceptions. That's really what I'm thinking about.

That said, I gave all my squads (including Tacticals) Fists in my most recent Marines list. But they're Imperial Fists, so it seemed appropriate.

You're damn right I'm not trying to say anything to specific. And you're damn right I'm mysterious about it because it took me effort to figure those things out. You want it, you put in the work. You figure it out.

Kobe said about lebron playing with Shaq, "I'm not gonna tell him anything, he can figure it out himself."

It's the same thing. I don't owe you the knowledge, and it has nothing to do with ego. It doesn't benefit me or you to tell you straight out all my tricks.

Besides, if you want to be the best, you have to figure these things out for yourself. And it's okay to disagree with me. It's fine. If it works for you, it works for you. I can't convince some people that a psycannon is better than a lascannon at killing marines in cover. <shrug>

Learning range guessing is trivial, especially if you've played WHFB. I can't remember the last time I was incorrect as to any range.

TLDR

I don't owe you the knowledge, and it has nothing to do with ego.

Riiiight.

I wasn't sure before, but now I am.

It's actually very helpful in answering some of the questions I had when I started this thread, though, so thank you for that.

So i actually took the time to READ all of the posts..and there are just to many id like to pull quotes from that i decided to make my own list...

The area i'm in is new to War, as am I. I did join a league over an hour from my house just to get more variety of people to play, hopefully some losses to learn from.. i dont mean that in a conceited way just that increasing the pool of players you have the opportunity to play, more chances you have to learn, and lets face it, in any game when you lose you learn the best.

This being said i think anyone can pick up the game and play, but at the same time i think its a matter of how quickly does said person digest all of the basics of the game and then start seeing advanced tactics for themselves? how quickly does said person learn to think of at least 5 turns in advance, how fast do i have to push forward? when do i have to push? when is it acceptable to sac a unit to reach said goal? will the sacrifice be in my favor? at what point do i have to start pushing for objectives through what ever route is prime? placing terrain creating a balanced board (so you always have good options either side) yet placing the terrain in a way that either side you get you already know how your going to want to deploy to control choke points etc?

Measuring distances.. this should actually be a very trivial part of the game as if you keep track of the number of inches the board is, minus your deployment forward, minus their deployment forward you know exactly the distances between your armies.. then if you keep track of both sides movement/run distances most of the math here is basic adding and subtracting, then when you move at said angles if your up to snuff on your trig (of course we dont have time to be 100% PRECISE on this part) but since its a relatively short distance you should be able to make a fairly accurate on the fly estimate of the distance traveled towards your units, but guess what! every time you shoot you get to reset your chance for error on the distance between units to 0 again... So i personally dont think measuring distances between players is a good measuring stick of how skilled or unskilled a player is. (or maybe me being an engineering major just makes me go about this differently than most?)

Guess to just making a list of qualities..

1) making a list that has as many tools as possible to beat what ever is thrown at you
2) knowing how to use this list in all its facets
3) knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy, also the actual use of these to your advantage.
4) strategy (making the right moves at right times etc)
5) having enough redundancy that if something goes wrong you still have options, it is war after all.

Dice can be a factor. My battle-Cry says it all.
“OH GOD PLEASE, LET ME ROLL AVERAGE”
Tactically I am god IMOHO. I can get my units into advantages positions, quickly set up kill zones and generally spend most of the game making my opponent react to me.
Then my Dice will come into to play. I only roll poorly all the time when I am DM-ing may D&D game, if fact sometimes I roll on average hirer numbers when I roll 6d’s in 40k than I do some nights than with my d20’s.
My problem in Wargaming in general is I roll in streaks.
One turn I can’t roll below a 3, the next higher than a 4.
I have learned to compensate some.
When I start to roll well I tend to get more aggressive, when I roll poor I go conservative.
The tick is knowing when this is starting to happen.

Besides, if you want to be the best, you have to figure these things out for yourself. And it's okay to disagree with me. It's fine. If it works for you, it works for you. I can't convince some people that a psycannon is better than a lascannon at killing marines in cover. <shrug>

Not trying to get personal, but it seems like you might have a bit high of an opinion of your own playing abilities.

Tactically I am god IMOHO. I can get my units into advantages positions, quickly set up kill zones and generally spend most of the game making my opponent react to me.
Then my Dice will come into to play.

Dice probably feth me over once every 20 games or so. I can rarely think of a time when I lost due to bad rolls. And this situation happens to everyone all the time, where dice dont work for you.

Learning range guessing is trivial, especially if you've played WHFB. I can't remember the last time I was incorrect as to any range.

This.

TLDR

This too

That said, I gave all my squads (including Tacticals) Fists in my most recent Marines list. But they're Imperial Fists, so it seemed appropriate.

Power fists and imperial fists are both great. I have almost always ran fists on my tac squads on they have never let me down. Instant killing special characters and HQs, punching open dreads and enemy tanks, putting wounds on MCs. Far as im concerned fist is almost always better as it allows more utility. I run my tac squads decked out though, lascannon, melta gun, combi melta and fist.

Eidolon wrote:
Not trying to get personal, but it seems like you might have a bit high of an opinion of your own playing abilities.

It's a failing common to your local hero type gamer. I'm not saying this guy is one of those, but most legit high end players don't bring this kind of attitude. The whole 'it's a mystery you're not prepared to understand' thing is a crock.

Eidolon wrote: Power fists and imperial fists are both great. I have almost always ran fists on my tac squads on they have never let me down. Instant killing special characters and HQs, punching open dreads and enemy tanks, putting wounds on MCs. Far as im concerned fist is almost always better as it allows more utility. I run my tac squads decked out though, lascannon, melta gun, combi melta and fist.

Yup, fists (almost) all the way for me too. Flexibility is the key word there too. PWs have their place, mostly on S or I enhanced MEQs, but the PF is generally speaking the best way to go. Not only does it provide a lot of tactical flex that a PW doesn't, but also does a better job with more guaranteed combat res, which is aften a huge deal for MEQs.

Learning range guessing is trivial, especially if you've played WHFB. I can't remember the last time I was incorrect as to any range.

As an experiment, I took a pair of dice and threw them down on the floor a number of times. I then guessed the distance between the two of them.

I found that I was able to guess within about a half inch when they were less than 18" apart, but when they got past that, I started getting off by much more.

As I said, I'm not clear what we're even talking about here, or how it'd play out. As TopC said, there's a ton you can do as far as remembering your range measurements, remembering how far things deployed, etc. You can also guess very easily when you're along a table edge, and can use it for scale. You can use trig as well, but sometimes that may just amount to making two guesses, rather than one, and thus isn't all that helpful.

So, is this top secret skill just a combination of the above factors? Or is it something even more amazing, with scuddman going out on nights of the new moon and sacrificing a virgin protractor to the Gods of Spatial Relationships?

Not trying to get personal, but it seems like you might have a bit high of an opinion of your own playing abilities.

I was thinking along the same lines, but I think it's really more an issue of being focused on playing abilities, hierarchy, etc.

I think there's a specific mentality that results in the perception of the "amazing player." I'd call it a "sales guy" mentality, since it seems really prevalent in sales jobs.

Some people think they themselves are the amazing player, some people think a friend of theirs is, etc. Mainly they just see a high degree of stratification in skill, a clear pecking order, and it's important to them that it be recognized and respected.

I think it's a matter of internal vs. external valdation.

Some people are validated internally, they feel successful based on their own criteria, so even if everyone is patting them on the back, if they feel like they played bad and got lucky, they won't be pleased. This is how I operate, and I think it's why I don't see such stratification in player skill. I'm not really worried about the other guy, I'm worried about what I do.

Conversely, externally validated people need others to approve of what they've done in order to confirm for them that it was successful. I think scuddman is this way, it's why he describes his success in terms of other players saying things to him as a result of his play.

So, if you're both competitive and externally validated, it requires that you see the world as very stratified, so that there's room for one to "win," and room for others to see how much better this person is are and remark on it. Because this is the worldview that these players value, when it's clear they're not the better player they will praise the other player as being great. At the same time, they're hoping to be the one being praised someday, either due to context (i.e. a smaller pond), or improvement of their own results.

They will respond negatively to people who don't view things the way they do, as scuddman has with his "you don't get it." Similarly, internally validated players will respond negatively to the opposing view by saying things like "you seem high on yourself."

I think understanding this about yourself and your opponent is important, because I think players tend to enjoy playing like minded players a lot more.

Phryxis wrote:
As I said, I'm not clear what we're even talking about here, or how it'd play out. As TopC said, there's a ton you can do as far as remembering your range measurements, remembering how far things deployed, etc. You can also guess very easily when you're along a table edge, and can use it for scale. You can use trig as well, but sometimes that may just amount to making two guesses, rather than one, and thus isn't all that helpful.

Agreed, if you try to be overly precise on a given trig problem it will just distract you from other things that actually require more attention... but i guess i was referring to more of a very simplistic approach, if they move 6'' at a certain angle (known value), then you make 1 guess at the distance traveled laterally (not towards your unit, or whichever distance is shorter to estimate obviously..). so your simple problem would be, x^2 = (6^2) - (your guess^2).. where x is the distance traveled towards said group of units.. Numerical example, 4''^2 + x^2 = 6^2: 16 + x^2 = 36: x^2=36-16: X^2 = 20: X= approx 4.5'', 5x5 = 25, 4x4=16, from some basic knowledge of the relationship of squares its pretty easy to see its slightly less than half way between them but w/o getting way to indepth mid point is a good guess.. which is accurate to within 1/16th of an inch..more than valid for this purpose.

and thanks for the props

and to the people who think withholding information from the community as a whole is a good strategy for winning, your right. But is winning all thats really important to you? if so by all means continue creaming your local competition because they dont have the numerical background/experience to know the tricks that you do. Personally, although im sure i do speak for a large body of people who honestly prefer winning through tactical preparedness as well as strategic decisions, not some little trick i PERSONALLY know and you dont. These little "tricks" are what those of competitive nature would consider to be the fundamentals of the game. No they arent necessary to play the game and have fun, yes they are to have a competitive edge to your style, which is your competitive you dont want to just blow your opponent out of the water, you want to be challenged, because by overcoming adversities do we grow by the leaps and bounds as players, and as a community enriching the game for all. Thus by sharing the knowledge we all acquire we improve the game level of all who take this advice for what it is, advice to improve each other, not to degrade one another. If this is done we all can reach new levels of enjoyment from the game. although this sentiment applies to every competitive game...and yes i chose the word game, because there are certain things that are competitive that we dont want to be equal knowledge base on.

So guess in summary, if your intentionally keeping the skill level of players around you stagnant because of your unwillingness to help them improve, shame on you because all your really doing in the long run is hurting yourself. Wait until you meet a group of people who HAVE been sharing, HAVE been growing, your going to get stomped, and guess what? its your own fault