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.

I find that sharing information with the group is beneficial as it benefits the entire community. The whole group gets better and they can build off each other as opposed to always losing to one player. In addition it makes for more fun all around, as once again they can actually put up a fight. Finally if you spend most of a game giving your opponent advice and you tie or even lose by telling them what they can do to the beat you did you really lose?

I don't agree. I think the game evolving is a bad thing in some ways. Look at a game like Marvel vs. capcom 2. The game has evolved so much it's been broken down into insanity.

That's too many hoops for a player to jump through. The bigger the evolution, the bigger the difference between the top players and the beginners. That's bad for the same, in my opinion.

I used to be a big advocate of knowledge share. The problem is, the community needs to embrace the idea, and it doesn't. If I share knowledge and no one else does (and I admit I freely share too much), I'm the one who loses. The community grows at my expense, but there's no benefit for me. It's not worth it.

And when you answer people's questions and they're all haughty about it and aren't appreciative like Phyrxis was? What's the point? THe internet is not going to reward me for putting in the effort.

And when you answer people's questions and they're all haughty about it and aren't appreciative like Phyrxis was?

Dude, take some responsibility for the outcomes you create.

You came into this thread and immediately started bragging about your range estimation abilities. Bragging will predispose everyone to view you negatively.

You then compound that by telling me, repeatedly, that I'm wrong. "You're looking at it all wrong."

It doesn't help that you were saying this even as you misunderstood me. This just makes you look even more arrogant. You tell people they're wrong before you re-read.

Please also note that when you said I was "looking at it all wrong," I said this:

"No, I think I'm just not making my point well enough..."

Even though you had already come across as arrogant, already made sure to directly inform me of my wrongness, already failed to read my posts carefully, I accepted responsibility for the confusion and continued to be polite.

You just forge ahead, bragging, telling everyone who's wrong, refusing to share tips for better play... Now you're lamenting like you're the victim.

THe internet is not going to reward me for putting in the effort.

Seriously?

I donate money to various charities. Does it really matter at all to me if the Phillipino kid I sponsor has school supplies and clothes? No, it doesn't at all. I do it because you really shouldn't need a reason to do something good for somebody.

Obviously that's not enough for you. But this really gets back to TopC's point, and Eidolon's point. They're being specific about giving 40K help, and how that makes your community better... But really, it's a lot bigger than that. If you live a greedy, petty life, always asking what you get out of everything... Well, look at you. You're feeling mistreated and slighted. The world is going to give you back what you put out there.

It's easy: Post in good faith. Post to help people. Post to expand other people's enjoyment of the hobby.

You're always going to lose games. If you have a positive, friendly, collaborative approach to the game, you'll always have fun.

Phryxis wrote:

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?

I don't really know how to explain it. In WHFB and old-school 40k, there are/were many weapons where you would guess a distance for the weapon to fire and it would go that far. I ran an Empire army in WHFB that featured many cannons, so I quickly learned how to guess distances accurately, even over long ranges. I don't remember how I did it exactly, but after three or four games my artillery became far more precise and my guesses seemed bang on target. If you don't want to bother to learn distance guessing, though, one good trick is to use things around you to approximate distances. For example, most games I play take place on a six foot by four foot table. By using the edge of the table as a benchmark, I can easily estimate 48." Similarly, I know that if my model is deployed in the middle of the board, between my two short table edges, it is roughly 36" to either short end. I also know the lengths of my vehicle hulls, the size of my bases, etc. By applying these lengths and some basic trigonometry, you can calculate most distances. Try doing the dice experiment on a 40k table sometime and see if that's easier for you.

Upon reflection, you probably only really need to know how to eyeball two inches, six inches, twelve inches, eighteen inches, and twenty-four inches without using any tricks. Most others can probably be approximated with no real trouble. Knowing how to guess longer distances is really not that important in 40k now that Guess weapons have become a thing of the past.

Some units just click with some people.
In my old BattleTech games I used a Mech call the Rifleman, in 40k Terms think a AV 10/10/9 Dred with Two Plasma Cannons that still had the Gets Hot Rule and 2 Auto-Cannons. I kick tail with this one. If any one else used it they would die a horrible flaming death.
The other one I loved was called a Dire Wolf “Gun Star”, think of a Land Raider with 4 Twin Linked Rail Guns. Every time I pulled it out the fist shot was Crew Stunned followed by a Wrecked Result by the end of turn-2. If someone else took it out, run for the hills.

scuddman wrote: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>

This is so totally the opposite of how one of the top players in my area acts. He just teaches anybody anything they're willing to learn. I think teaching other players to be better is good for the hobby--everybody gets better and you get more good, challenging games.

The problem is not that people are trying to steal secrets. More often than not it's that the things that would make players better are not the kinds of things that can be explained in such a way that they're easily understood. And if you're trying to give somebody advice in the context of a game in which you're winning, you're more likely than not to hurt their feelings and make them angry.

If you're really that good, then why should you be afraid of competition? I think if it's a "trick" that you have to keep a secret in order for it to work, then it's not really the kind of deep knowledge that lets you win in spite of lists and gimmicks.

If somebody personally asks me, i have no problem telling them, I just prefer to be more indirect and have the person think about it. Maybe that comes off as arrogant, but that's not my intent.

It's not that I'm afraid of competition, I just don't think it's good for the game to evolve too far.

Maybe I need a better example.

Okay, what if you were just starting the hobby, but to play you had to paint your models to golden daemon standard, just because everyone evolved to that level already? WHat do you think would happen?

Maybe I should rephrase it.

I don't think the game should become that competitive.

WHere am I bragging about range estimation? You asked what top players could do, and I gave an example. THere's no bragging, that's a real thing. You kinda dismissed it out of hand, so I went to town on you because I got annoyed you answered that way after I went through the effort of answering you.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

scuddman wrote: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>

This is so totally the opposite of how one of the top players in my area acts. He just teaches anybody anything they're willing to learn. I think teaching other players to be better is good for the hobby--everybody gets better and you get more good, challenging games.

The problem is not that people are trying to steal secrets. More often than not it's that the things that would make players better are not the kinds of things that can be explained in such a way that they're easily understood. And if you're trying to give somebody advice in the context of a game in which you're winning, you're more likely than not to hurt their feelings and make them angry.

If you're really that good, then why should you be afraid of competition? I think if it's a "trick" that you have to keep a secret in order for it to work, then it's not really the kind of deep knowledge that lets you win in spite of lists and gimmicks.

Absolutely correct. Myself and some of the more successful players in my local group WANT to teach people how to play better. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that if you don't invest in your gaming community that you will get nothing in return.

We are tired of only playing vs ourselves. We have someone who teach basic tactics and list building quite well and enjoys playing newbs. Those folks get key experience. Then we play and help them with their lists.

If they listen, they learn and grow. If they don't, we kick their ass. They either get tired of getting their ass kicked and quit, or they get tired of getting their ass kicked and start listening, learning and growing.

It's not that simple, and I take from this my experience as a long time former red shirt.

Most of the time when people asked me for tactical advice, they were looking for that simple gimmick or awesome net list.

The players that were actually interested in learning asked me specific questions about tactical issues or concepts.

Most players want to get better, but don't actually care enough to put in the effort. It's only the ones that do I really have time for.

It's like the friend that keeps going back to the bad relationship. I genuinely want to help him, but I can't if he doesn't want the help himself. I'm WASTING my time trying to help him, and it doesn't help him or me. You can't save people from themselves, and it's foolish to try.

Lastly, I found being too direct with advice was bad. The players would follow my advice too literally, and wouldn't think for themselves. Instead of coming up with their own army lists, tactics, and ideas, they just wanted to copy someone elses. It didn't encourage critical thinking or a better player.

In my opinion.
Your mileage may vary.

scuddman wrote:It's not that simple, and I take from this my experience as a long time former red shirt.

Most of the time when people asked me for tactical advice, they were looking for that simple gimmick or awesome net list.

The players that were actually interested in learning asked me specific questions about tactical issues or concepts.

Most players want to get better, but don't actually care enough to put in the effort. It's only the ones that do I really have time for.

It's like the friend that keeps going back to the bad relationship. I genuinely want to help him, but I can't if he doesn't want the help himself. I'm WASTING my time trying to help him, and it doesn't help him or me. You can't save people from themselves, and it's foolish to try.

Lastly, I found being too direct with advice was bad. The players would follow my advice too literally, and wouldn't think for themselves. Instead of coming up with their own army lists, tactics, and ideas, they just wanted to copy someone elses. It didn't encourage critical thinking or a better player.

In my opinion.
Your mileage may vary.

I would bet the majority of players you are talking about got where they are at due to bad advice to begin with.

I think the vast majority of folks out there are finding our mileage varies a great deal from your experience.

I've seen those same people in our store. They no longer play the top players or participate in tourneys much due to the fact that they would do ok until they met real competition and lists. We are absolutely fine with that. Their loss and our gain. You can't save everyone.

scuddman wrote:It's not that simple, and I take from this my experience as a long time former red shirt.

Most of the time when people asked me for tactical advice, they were looking for that simple gimmick or awesome net list.

The players that were actually interested in learning asked me specific questions about tactical issues or concepts.

Most players want to get better, but don't actually care enough to put in the effort. It's only the ones that do I really have time for.

I lament the state of gaming in your area if you really are the wise-man-on-the-mountain that your comments style you as.

Scuddman: I feel that you have somewhat of megalomania and dont want to share "secrets" for fear of losing your top dog spot at podunk LGS. Some of your points are good, some are bad, but what really bothers me are the wise sage comments. Same for the comments of 'why should I share information, nobody will reward me' are the kind of attittude people hate about competitive players.

You are making the assumption that personal advantage and right are normally mutually exclusive. Not only is this false but it is one of the most damaging things to human culture. I have made a point in the past few months of helping out people who want help. Loaning them models, letting them sub stuff in to try out new lists, helping with list building, point out tactical things that would have turned a massacre into a good fight. This does a few things good for the community.

It builds a sense of community, as my willingness to share models and 'secrets' means others are more likely to do so, and there is no 'that guy wins all his games and thinks hes better then the rest of us' attittude.

It raises the competition level. People can now see where they went wrong in games, so the excuse of "hes just running a cheesy list" or "hes just played longer" no longer work, and are turned into "what did I do wrong, what could I do better". And by raising the competition level I am forced to get better to keep stomping people, and this helps me out. I could never share my 'secrets' and just keep stomping people, but then when I run into a group that does share and builds off each other im at a loss. You think my gaming secrets and tactics are going to shock or surprise any of the wrecking crew guys?

So right is only provides less advantage in the short term. In the long term playing better people makes you better. A lot of the best players are in clubs of the best players. Notice a trend here? They all build off each other as opposed to never sharing their gaming kung fu secrets.

A few years back when I had just gotten into tournament playing I was running the generic clown car eldar list. It was a net list, plain and simple. I showed up to adepticon and first game got put up against Marc Parker. I can count on one hand the number of games I have lost worse then that one. But he gave some quick advice and went on his way. No kung fu master attittude, no hurr hurr you are the suxzorz crap. And heres why, and why 40k competitive players>video game competitive players.

1-They have to leave their basements to go play. I know that sounds childish, but its true. I can 'practice' all I want for a video game on xbox live with my 'clan' and never leave the house. To play in a 40k event you have to leave the house, and often thats the best and only practice. Very few people have gaming tables in their houses too. And a lot of the guys you meet at the big events have driven or flown a thousand miles to get there. They put a lot of effort and money into this, and will enter even if they know they are unlikely to win just for the competition.

2-Most of them are adults. Yes I know this is probably another low blow, but Ive seen the halo events, and games like street fighter. A lot of them are 15 or 16 year old kids. A lot of the guys are these events are around 30 years old.

Your argument for not wanting to hobby to evolve is invalidated by this point. I played halo 3 on xbox live for a while. It has a very hardcore and refined gamer community in some parts. It also has a very large casual players. I got up to upper 40s in MLG playlist, so I was better then most people on there, but I could also get on social and just run around. Same thing for 40k. So what if the best players become better. You can still play casual games.

3-Its a community. I liken 40k events to a traveling circus. Its a group of weirdos who are all united in their weirdness. And community should come first. Id rather be average in a community of tough players then best in a community of bad players. But I guess this idea of gaming community is lost to some.

Finally with the right vs advantage I have another point to make. I volunteer about 20 hours a week down at a homeless shelter making food and stocking stuff/cleaning. It might seem to my advantage to stay at home and paint or browse dakka. Because that is more enjoyable in the short term. But in the long run I can go down to the shelter, leave, and feel like I accomplished something. We associate advantage with pleasure. What gives us the most basic enjoyment is the best, and should almost always be chosen. But I can say that having learned to live I find just as much enjoyment in working at the shelter as I do in playing 40k, more so and many ways. Then again this is something that you have to learn over years, its not something that is born into you.

I'm the dark horse at the Los Angeles Battle Bunker, hardly a small local store, and I'm hardly regarded as the top dog. <shrug> It just sounds different on the internet. If you're in the area, ask other people what they think of me and my abilities, that's a better indication.

About competitive street fighter: All the champs are my age or older. There are no 16 year olds that are competitive in this hobby. Why? Because the arcades are mostly gone, and the few that people still go to are dominated by some of the best players in the world. Many for more than 10 years. You can't get a good casual game in, and it's so hard to learn anything when you get demolished that bad over and over. The evolvement is too high and the difference is too great.

You say what you say, but my experience is different.
I tried what you tried as a red shirt, and I would do it again if I was a red shirt again, but it was mostly frustration and people abusing my goodwill. It's not worth it.

Most players are not going to be good players or listen no matter what you do. On top of that, there is a prevailing view that if something is too good, you shun it or avoid it, it gets "banned". To promote true growth you have to promote competitiveness to an extent, and that just goes back to my thinking that I don't believe the game should be too competitive. The game was built to be easy to pick up regardless of your opponent, and I think it should stay that way.

But it's only an opinion, and like I said, your mileage may vary.

Maybe this'll shed some light into some of my thinking. My motivation to play is to find the crappiest army and make it work. If it's a top tournament army or whatever, I'm not interested. It makes my day when my opponent looks at my army and says "I'm sorry." then loses. That brings a smile to my face. That's why I've played so many different armies and have so many different wacky ideas. If people respect me as a player, it's because no matter what army I"m handed or what ugliness I face, I can at least give the other player a good run for his money. Of course if people are top tier whoring I'm not gonna win all the time, and I'm okay with that. I just want to make top players sweat with the worst garbage available.

Hence <- Dark Angels.

scuddman wrote:I'm the dark horse at the Los Angeles Battle Bunker, hardly a small local store, and I'm hardly regarded as the top dog. <shrug> It just sounds different on the internet. If you're in the area, ask other people what they think of me and my abilities, that's a better indication.

About competitive street fighter: All the champs are my age or older. There are no 16 year olds that are competitive in this hobby. Why? Because the arcades are mostly gone, and the few that people still go to are dominated by some of the best players in the world. Many for more than 10 years. You can't get a good casual game in, and it's so hard to learn anything when you get demolished that bad over and over. The evolvement is too high and the difference is too great.

You say what you say, but my experience is different.
I tried what you tried as a red shirt, and I would do it again if I was a red shirt again, but it was mostly frustration and people abusing my goodwill. It's not worth it.

Most players are not going to be good players or listen no matter what you do. On top of that, there is a prevailing view that if something is too good, you shun it or avoid it, it gets "banned". To promote true growth you have to promote competitiveness to an extent, and that just goes back to my thinking that I don't believe the game should be too competitive. The game was built to be easy to pick up regardless of your opponent, and I think it should stay that way.

But it's only an opinion, and like I said, your mileage may vary.

So in other words, we should ignore what you had or have to say. Got that. Thanks for the tip.

Hey, I've contributed more strategy and ideas than you have in this thread Mr. Giving.

Why don't you get off your high horse and prove what you say by example?

As a red shirt, I've probably contributed more to the hobby community than any of you. Borrow models? Give some tips?
I've worked overtime without pay to run an event in a store, got two hours of sleep, and was back in the store the next day to cleanup.
I've run events, I've tactics classes. I've given away models that I built, bought, and painted because I felt the player deserved it and needed it.

It is so easy to judge others and say all this idealistic crap. There is no feel good feeling most of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty. People don't appreciate it, and you guys don't understand that because you haven't actually done it.

I can't say I've seen a lot of tactical ideas or strategy in this thread from anyone.

Just sayin'.

blah blah I try to win with what I think are the hardest armies to play blah blah blah

Ive played deathwing for 7 years now. Not raider rush. Not belial and friends with ravenwing. Nothing but terminators. You are in the class that we call martyrs. The kind of person who deliberately runs a crappy army and tries to win. This way one of two things happens.
Victory-hooray I beat so and so with a bad list, I am therefore a tactical master
Defeat-at least I wasnt running some kind of cheesy army, if I was running a good list i would have won.

Let me ask you something. You and me are playing each other. I run a power list, you dont. I win. You could say its just because of the power list, but wasnt I smarter then you in taking the power list? Same for the power fist argument. The situations in which a sword is better are so few that its hardly worth mentioning, but a fist is much better then a sword in many ways. Dreadnoughts, MCs, ICs, I can kill all these with a fist, cant with a sword. So you can take your sword, but if that tac squad gets charged by a dreadnought you are screwed. If my fist squad gets charged by a dread I can at least put up a fight. Fist is then a more well rounded choice, and allows more room for tactical errors. Sounds like a smarter choice, and isnt making smart choices what tactics are all about.

Flamer is almost always better against GEQ and infantry then a melta gun, so why ever bother taking meltas.

I can't say I've seen a lot of tactical ideas or strategy in this thread from anyone.

You are in the wrong thread, this thread is about how good you can be as a 40k player.

scuddman wrote:Hey, I've contributed more strategy and ideas than you have in this thread Mr. Giving.

Why don't you get off your high horse and prove what you say by example?

You mean like you, where you tell folks to figure it out themselves because you had bad experiences and therefore don't want to 'grow the community at your expense'?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

scuddman wrote:As a red shirt, I've probably contributed more to the hobby community than any of you. Borrow models? Give some tips?
I've worked overtime without pay to run an event in a store, got two hours of sleep, and was back in the store the next day to cleanup.
I've run events, I've tactics classes. I've given away models that I built, bought, and painted because I felt the player deserved it and needed it.

It is so easy to judge others and say all this idealistic crap. There is no feel good feeling most of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty. People don't appreciate it, and you guys don't understand that because you haven't actually done it.

Talk about someone on a high horse...

If you've played pure deathwing you're a martyr too.

Yes, at a basic level you were smarter than me to take a more powerful list...
But I personally find playing power lists boring, so inadvertently I have to come up with more/play harder/ be better to have success.

Eventually what happens is I evolve quicker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you say contribute and then don't?

So what have you really contributed to the hobby community? Oh nothing...

Hypocrite. Lots of talk, but you didn't back it up.
Thanks for showing everyone else that your talk was full of hot air.

No, I never had any ideals of my deathwing being a competitive army. I dropped in and started pew pewing then punch punching. That simple. If I bring them out its simply for fun. If I were to play in an event with them and not place well I would have noone to blame.

scuddman wrote:So you say contribute and then don't?

So what have you really contributed to the hobby community? Oh nothing...

Hypocrite. Lots of talk, but you didn't back it up.
Thanks for showing everyone else that your talk was full of hot air.

You have no idea what I have or have not done to promote the hobby.

I'm not the one posting in this thread that advice and teaching is bad for the game.

I'm not the one posting in this thread that I won't give advice and go figure it out yourself.

I'm not the one making claims of anything.

Frankly, I am confident that anyone that is reading and replying to this thread knows exactly who is full of hot air and who isn't.

This is gonna get locked unless people start making reasonable contributions.

I think a conversation Eidolon and I had yesterday summed up the actual point of the thread pretty well. Basically we decided that because of the small sample size in tournaments, outside factors like matchups and scenarios make a big difference in who wins the overall. However, the better players with more tactics will tend to place higher more consistently, even if it doesn't result in more actual tournament wins.

It is actually, in fact, more constructive than giving things in black and white.

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he eats for life.

What about telling him he's too dumb to fish?

scuddman wrote:It is so easy to judge others and say all this idealistic crap. There is no feel good feeling most of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty. People don't appreciate it, and you guys don't understand that because you haven't actually done it.

People who are genuinely motivated to help others, 'go above and beyond the call of duty' as you say, find intrinsic value in simply making the attempt/knowing that they've had some impact, even if it's not readily apparent.

In other words, refusing to help others because you don't get anything out of it and then bitching about how you don't get anything out of it is the antithesis of someone who finds intrinsic value in being helpful.

Let people borrow models? I've given away models. Your bar strikes me as remarkably low for this altruistic background you're spouting.

So what have you really contributed to the hobby community? Oh nothing...

Imweasel and I are both members at a LGS. In general he's remarkably helpful to new players looking to improve their game, and a competent vet who can push you to move your game to this 'higher level' by simply being better and more insightful than the average.

I love statements like this:

But I personally find playing power lists boring, so inadvertently I have to come up with more/play harder/ be better to have success.

Eventually what happens is I evolve quicker.

No, what you actually do is hang out at basically the same level as you were always at, and when you lose to people at or above your skill level playing superior lists you have the old fallback of 'well, my list sucked'. Using a crappy army to beat some Net-Decker who simply downloads Nob Bikers and expects to win is not even close to the same as beating vets who are trying out new things.

Breaking your kneecaps before a footrace doesn't help you "evolve quicker". It simply gives you lets you feel good about beating the worst of the worse while losing to the best of the best.

No, because I don't lose to the best of the best at the biggest gaming store in LA. With the worst armies.

- Edited by the Modquisition for violating Dakka's Rule #1 -

scuddman wrote:I give hints of how to think of things, idiot. Unless you cant read. That's already more than anything you've ever done.
What the heck have you done? Why don't you show us all right now how it's supposed to be done?
Why don't you prove your points instead of slinging insults?
Or are you afraid to take the heat?

Im done arguing. When the argument has degenerated to this level its over.

I think a conversation Eidolon and I had yesterday summed up the actual point of the thread pretty well. Basically I argued that because of the small sample size in tournaments, outside factors like matchups and scenarios make a big difference in who wins the overall. However, the better players with more tactics will tend to place higher more consistently, even if it doesn't result in more actual tournament wins.

This. From what ive seen theres a few things that make up good players.

Army list-Solid army list design, in many different ways.
Knowledge of rules and lists-they know what you can do with your army, how to beat it with theres, and are rarely surprised or bullied on rules.
Tactics-They know how to actually play the game. Real world tactics are only half applicable to 40k, and they know what works in 40k. When to suicide a unit, when to tarpit, when just stunning a tank is good enough.
Confidence-Rarely losing your belief in ability to win is a decisive trait. In addition theres a lack of hubris or arrogance, always focusing on the goals.

The 1st page was some of the best stuff I have read on Dakka...
I have not seen anything worth reading sense the middle of page 2

Gornall wrote:I think a conversation Eidolon and I had yesterday summed up the actual point of the thread pretty well. Basically I argued that because of the small sample size in tournaments, outside factors like matchups and scenarios make a big difference in who wins the overall. However, the better players with more tactics will tend to place higher more consistently, even if it doesn't result in more actual tournament wins.

This is the exact point I tried to make earlier in the thread. Agree 100%.