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.

Archonate wrote:I used to play with a guy who boasted regularly that he was undefeated...
Came to find out later that when he's about to lose a game, he just starts putting his minis away and shakes his opponent's hand.
In his opponent's mind, he's conceding. In his mind the game was never finished and thus he didn't lose.

Strange, to say the least, I have conceded before, and I always count it at as a loss. Maybe thats just a personal thing I learned from MTG

Conceding = loss is a pretty standard thing. Pro chess players often concede when they can see unavoidable mate looming over them.

TBH some people may be undefeated for all their games but we all know it will never last, their time will come and when it does they will be pissed something fierce.

I am going to do mine for 6th edition because like TheCaptain said:

TheCaptain wrote:

For me, it's just a simple, encouraging way to keep track of my record, and simultaneously encourage myself to get better, write better lists, and play well. . . . . . It's not always about bragging, you see. Sometimes, it's an image to be upholded.

It is a motivation to be a better player and when two good players versus each other it makes a very enjoyable game.

So, 40k is a dice game. People win largely because they are lucky. When people feel like they're being competitive and are playing at something that's called a tournament, and then win, it's very easy for people to feel like they EARNED their success.

In this case, pity is in order, not scorn. If a person's life is so awful that the only way that they can feel successful in life is by playing a dice game and then thinking that the reason they won is because they're awesome, then things must be going really terribly for them. If that's what they need to have any self-esteem, then they should be treated with compassion.

Ailaros wrote:So, 40k is a dice game. People win largely because they are lucky. When people feel like they're being competitive and are playing at something that's called a tournament, and then win, it's very easy for people to feel like they EARNED their success.

In this case, pity is in order, not scorn. If a person's life is so awful that the only way that they can feel successful in life is by playing a dice game and then thinking that the reason they won is because they're awesome, then things must be going really terribly for them. If that's what they need to have any self-esteem, then they should be treated with compassion.

Implying dice is entirely luck-based and not about manipulating and understanding probability/averages and implying 40k doesn't involve strategy and tactical genius? (CREEEEED)

There is a slight amount of skill in 40k - mostly confined to knowing odds. This level is shallow, though, and relatively easily mastered.

As such, people who win a lot are either deliberately only playing games against people who have virtually none of what little player skill 40k has to offer, are people who are much, much luckier than they would ever feel comfortable admitting (and so they lie to themselves), or they're just outright lying about their record.

Self-deception is a heavy burden to bear. I feel genuinely sorry for such people.

Even in your first Hand of the King batrep you suggest a number of things could have been done differently/better.

40k is like chess with dice. Get the unit in the best, safest position, where it can do the most damage or hold out the longest. Then hope your rolls are good.

The whole first chunk of that is more skill/tactical understanding than luck.

True, luck can sway a game out of a good player's favour, but luck does not a good player make. Bad luck is what a good player's losses come from, just as luck is where a mediocre player's undeserved victories arise.

TheCaptain wrote:Even in your first Hand of the King batrep you suggest a number of things could have been done differently/better.

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming to be perfect, I'm claiming that at some point increased skill stops mattering. Actually, I'll just link it.

TheCaptain wrote:40k is like chess with dice.

That's like saying the NASCAR is like football, but with cars. Yes, they're both technically sports, but...

TheCaptain wrote:True, luck can sway a game out of a good player's favour, but luck does not a good player make. Bad luck is what a good player's losses come from, just as luck is where a mediocre player's undeserved victories arise.

The results of die rolls do not determine (or in any way reflect upon) a player's skill.

The results of die rolls do, however, determine the result of any given event. Taken in aggregate, the dice determine the result of the game, regardless of the relative skill level of the player. Mediocre and phenominal players both only hit with lasguns on 4's, and both only wreck a vehicle by rolling dice. Manipulating the odds you play so that you're playing them exactly the way you want to play them doesn't change the fact that the end results of said odds playing is, in fact, random.

I am now 700-0-1.

Played a Necron player as IG. Auto-lost to Imotekh.

But come at me!

Wardragoon wrote:

Archonate wrote:I used to play with a guy who boasted regularly that he was undefeated...
Came to find out later that when he's about to lose a game, he just starts putting his minis away and shakes his opponent's hand.
In his opponent's mind, he's conceding. In his mind the game was never finished and thus he didn't lose.

Strange, to say the least, I have conceded before, and I always count it at as a loss. Maybe thats just a personal thing I learned from MTG

This is a strange thing that CCG players, especially YuGiOh players seem to do...
Even though the rulebooks state that leaving before a player has won is a loss, they'll quit out before they can lose, and claim it never happened...

Ailaros wrote:So, 40k is a dice game. People win largely because they are lucky. When people feel like they're being competitive and are playing at something that's called a tournament, and then win, it's very easy for people to feel like they EARNED their success.

In this case, pity is in order, not scorn. If a person's life is so awful that the only way that they can feel successful in life is by playing a dice game and then thinking that the reason they won is because they're awesome, then things must be going really terribly for them. If that's what they need to have any self-esteem, then they should be treated with compassion.

It isn't all luck. You can't just drop your minis on the table and plan on the dice winning the game for you without thinking or using any kinds of tactics. Statistically that *could* happen, but it is very rare that only the dice with the game for you. More often I see the dice factor losing games for people, that they otherwise could have won if their rolling wasn't so atrocious.

It is sad if a person's only sense of self worth is their wargaming record. I prefer to measure life based on the types of people I get to regularly play with than whether I win or lose. As long as the game is fun against an enjoyable opponent I really don't care. Some people, though, do really measure their self-esteem on winning a game, which is why they also are such terrible losers because if they lose they are worthless, but if they win they are awesome. Bragging rights are cool when you win a particularly hard fought battle, but then the next game starts and it all doesn't matter anymore.

Skriker

I win about 50% of my games. Even if I won 75% of them, I'd have no compulsion to put that in my sig. I also don't bother reading other people's win/loss records. I don't care. It doesn't matter.

TheCaptain wrote:

hazal wrote:I am not buying it, assuming you play more then your little brother, a decent collection of individuals and dont cheat I am not buying it.... Stating you are 100-0, or undefeated (and hence your codex is better then mine) or that your tactics are sooo flawless that you have gone undefeated since you where conceived....

Its the same as claiming your dad is a space pirate astronaut with bulging muscles and super powers... those are Chaos Marines, and they get alllll the ladies...

Grow up and deflate your epeen... and we need more space pirate minis.

Little frustrated with 6th are we?

My record is as listed; some armies are just good right now. Flyer spam is one of them.

Pretty funny reading your signature;

Elysian 105th Skylance W:10-L:1-D:2 in 6th Edition

Girls with "<- Yes, that is me" in your Signature pointing at your profile picture; Yes, your cry for attention is noted. No, we are not impressed.

Yes your cry for attention is noted, The Captain. No, we are not impressed.

I just noticed The Captains sig and I support it 100%!

I think any descent player loses a lot, just because they playtest and try oddball stuff. I know when I go to the local hole in the wall store I also bring weaker stuff for the kids to cut their teeth on, unless they specificalyl request my A-Game lists. I honestly feel I learn more in a loss than I ever do in a win, so outside of tourneys I try to dial it back unless I am refining something. Anyone who does not lose frequently is not very innovative (and therefore will lose important games against more creative players) or their ego is so tied to winning that they are terrible sports.

Oh, not only TCG players, but young players in all games. Never had a childhood friend yell "I'm not playing anymore!" after he all but lost at a game of Monopoly? Since Yu-Gi-Oh players tend to be kids, I'm not that surprised.

In M:TG it's actually customary to forfeit games that you have no chance of winning, to be able to play more games that night(casual) or to save time(competitive). Of course, a forfeit is always a loss.

Ailaros, if the game were as much luck as you claim, how come some players do massively better than others? Why do many of the competitive blog authors defeat the majority of their opponents even though the necessary skill level is reached so easily? Because of their lucky charms?

I know some of my wins (and losses) were purely based on luck. But the majority wasn't. Either I won because I picked my targets better, moved better, build my list better than my opponent - or I lost because I shot the wrong targets at the wrong time, made bad moves or brought a bad list.

Oh, and I have no idea what my W/L record is, I couldn't even tell you how many games I played this year without resulting a calendar.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

hazal wrote:I am not buying it, assuming you play more then your little brother, a decent collection of individuals and dont cheat I am not buying it.... Stating you are 100-0, or undefeated (and hence your codex is better then mine) or that your tactics are sooo flawless that you have gone undefeated since you where conceived....

Its the same as claiming your dad is a space pirate astronaut with bulging muscles and super powers... those are Chaos Marines, and they get alllll the ladies...

Grow up and deflate your epeen... and we need more space pirate minis.

Little frustrated with 6th are we?

My record is as listed; some armies are just good right now. Flyer spam is one of them.

Pretty funny reading your signature;

Elysian 105th Skylance W:10-L:1-D:2 in 6th Edition

Girls with "<- Yes, that is me" in your Signature pointing at your profile picture; Yes, your cry for attention is noted. No, we are not impressed.

Yes your cry for attention is noted, The Captain. No, we are not impressed.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
-Martin Luther King

If you'd have read my post at the bottom of page 2, you'd have understood; that W/L/D isn't to impress you, or Dakka. I'm pretty above that, I have other things going for me. It's encouragement to keep my record good enough where I'm proud to display it. Try it sometime, after you get a few wins under your belt.

I've only seen it listed as W/L/D.

You care most bout how many wins you have and second most bout your losses. A lot of people don't even count draws so that's why its on the end. That's how I see it anyways

Wolfnid420 wrote:I've only seen it listed as W/L/D.

You care most bout how many wins you have and second most bout your losses. A lot of people don't even count draws so that's why its on the end. That's how I see it anyways

Yeah, I get that... but W/D/L follows the logic that a draw is somewhere in between a win and a loss

Every sport that I can think of lists stats as W-L-D.

And in the past year, I believe I went 6-3-11

TheCaptain wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

hazal wrote:I am not buying it, assuming you play more then your little brother, a decent collection of individuals and dont cheat I am not buying it.... Stating you are 100-0, or undefeated (and hence your codex is better then mine) or that your tactics are sooo flawless that you have gone undefeated since you where conceived....

Its the same as claiming your dad is a space pirate astronaut with bulging muscles and super powers... those are Chaos Marines, and they get alllll the ladies...

Grow up and deflate your epeen... and we need more space pirate minis.

Little frustrated with 6th are we?

My record is as listed; some armies are just good right now. Flyer spam is one of them.

Pretty funny reading your signature;

Elysian 105th Skylance W:10-L:1-D:2 in 6th Edition

Girls with "<- Yes, that is me" in your Signature pointing at your profile picture; Yes, your cry for attention is noted. No, we are not impressed.

Yes your cry for attention is noted, The Captain. No, we are not impressed.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
-Martin Luther King

If you'd have read my post at the bottom of page 2, you'd have understood; that W/L/D isn't to impress you, or Dakka. I'm pretty above that, I have other things going for me. It's encouragement to keep my record good enough where I'm proud to display it. Try it sometime, after you get a few wins under your belt.

How about an evolving tattoo on your wrist? That way you do not need to pop open a browser mid-game to lube up the e-peen for a couple of inspiring strokes.

Lobukia wrote:

Wolfnid420 wrote:I've only seen it listed as W/L/D.

You care most bout how many wins you have and second most bout your losses. A lot of people don't even count draws so that's why its on the end. That's how I see it anyways

Yeah, I get that... but W/D/L follows the logic that a draw is somewhere in between a win and a loss

But I don't think sports in the states put much emphasis on a draw. In some cases they are worse than a loss. But as to the OP, I honestly couldn't tell you my win/loss record, it just isn't a big deal to me.

Ailaros wrote:So, 40k is a dice game. People win largely because they are lucky. When people feel like they're being competitive and are playing at something that's called a tournament, and then win, it's very easy for people to feel like they EARNED their success.

This is ridiculous, just like your psychology. We play a lot of different games and even a few more luck based than 40k most of the time are decided by skill. Also, it's kind of easy to say "I won because of luck", happens quite often and some games are ditched because of that, when winners and losers agree that luck is too much a factor in the game.

People win largely because they made less mistakes, had a better plan, foreseen the enemy moves better etc. Luck decided game happens but is a rare occurence.

Ailaros wrote:There is a slight amount of skill in 40k - mostly confined to knowing odds. This level is shallow, though, and relatively easily mastered.

If 40k tactics is shallow, what to say about that quote then with all the simplification and negative stereotyping people who think they are good at 40k:

Ailaros wrote:In this case, pity is in order, not scorn. If a person's life is so awful that the only way that they can feel successful in life is by playing a dice game and then thinking that the reason they won is because they're awesome, then things must be going really terribly for them. If that's what they need to have any self-esteem, then they should be treated with compassion.

Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Even in your first Hand of the King batrep you suggest a number of things could have been done differently/better.

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming to be perfect, I'm claiming that at some point increased skill stops mattering. Actually, I'll just link it.

Oh yes your article. Last time you linked it I read the discussion connected and found it funny how in the middle of discussion you made version 2 and despite not proving that the game relies more on luck than skill, you summed up people disagreeing with you in that sentence:

"This theory, then, means that the more one advances in skill at playing 40k, the less they will see their games determined by their increase in skill, and the more that they will see their games determined by luck. For a person who wishes to advance in skill, this is naturally frustrating. At whatever level of skill one notices that luck is becoming a bigger factor, at some point, they are likely to hit a level where the game is just too much about luck for personal taste.

There are a few paths open to such a gamer:
....
- Engage in selective reasoning. Some players may choose to discard the effect of luck altogether from their games. They may come up with very elaborate and complex theories with regards to why they lost a game - after all, if they can't win or lose because of luck, then there must be some other reason. Of course, the accuracy of any such theory is immediately suspect, as removing luck from a game whose main mechanic is based on dice is unlikely to be particularly accurate, regardless of how much said hallucinations comfort the thinker. Furthermore, such theories tend to be as ugly and based on fallacy as they are ultimately useless. If that doesn't bother you, though, believe in whatever you want.
..."

Using your style, you should be treated with compassion if you have to defend your points like that, in the article instead posting it in the discussion accusing the people directly.

And about your "dimnishing returns of gaining skill" point, ask himalayan climbers. The legends die together with standard ones beause of unexpected weather changes, avalanches or breaking ice at the wrong moment and hundred of other luck based factors. The luck element is everywhere, does not change the fact that the better are still the better and that shows in their record.