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.

Not sure I agree with all that, but you forgot codex armies. Like marines.

Martel732 wrote:
Not sure I agree with all that, but you forgot codex armies. Like marines.

Codex marines beat dark eldar because index marines beat dark eldar... after DE get a codex though that will probably change unless the marines player is using the usual gimmicks.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?

Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

Most of them (not all) would still place well. Player skill (regardless of the inevitable howling that this will generate) is still tremendously important in 40k. Understanding where your opponent will screen, how he will do it, what objectives benefit him, all these things matter and a better more experienced player will come out on top most of the time.

Excellent point. Player skill is a factor, even if some people do like to say otherwise.

However, it's not the only factor. The list you play is also a factor. So is the scenario you play. And the skill and the list your opponent is bringing to the table. And some other things affect the outcome as well. I've won two small 8e tournamets in a row and I'm not attributing these victories to any single factor.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Audustum wrote:
[ Really now, where did I ask for well placement in any ITC event in 7th? You might want to re-read my post before you climb up a soapbox.

The question specifically asked for a major player (of which this fellow also doesn't seem to qualify but that aside) who replicated a feat similar to the WarCon. No Retreat was far too household to specifically be anti-meta to qualify as a similar feat.

You specifically said "Now find a major player who did that with 7th edition Dark Eldar and then we can talk" - I provided you with a Dark Eldar placed well in more than one ITC event. Lawrence is a fairly well known player - he also won the GW GT Heat 1 in 2017 and almost made top 8 at 2017's LVO. You discarded the point because No Retreat doesn't count because it doesn't meet the criteria you established. That's fine, however since you didn't lay out that criteria ahead of time I have no interest in having a conversation with you - there is nothing to be gained other than being talked down to which I don't really enjoy. You have your opinion - it is firmly held, I don't intend to attempt any further to challenge that because the outcome if I engage is the same if I don't.

The criteria was laid out. Look at the whole paragraph. The sentence you quoted was "Now find a major player who did *that*". What's that? It's the prior sentences: what the WarCon list did. What did that list do? It placed well in the LVO. No Retreat isn't anything like LVO rule or competition-wise.

It seems like you walked into a corner and want a way out, which is fine. Don't be rude about it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah yes the "no true Scotsman tournament" fallacy argument.

While that is a fallacy, it doesn't actually prevent criticism of any sort of a cited reference. Specifically, the no true Scotsman fallacy requires that you do NOT deny the counter-example but instead change the definition of your generalization.

I did the opposite. I maintained the definition of my generalization and denied the counter-example with reference to a specific objective rule (pointing out how heavily house ruled the tournament (with rules that limit meta builds) was and it's lack of emphasis on competition by focusing on art). Thus, this is not an appropriate application of the fallacy.

Let me give an example
Spot the difference:

No Scotsman drinks black coffee.
But Angus drinks black coffee.
Ah but no true Scotsman does.

Vs.

No Scotsman drinks black coffee.
But Angus drinks black coffee.
Angus only moved to Scotland yesterday.

You might have a point if not for the fact that every major tournament in 7th used different rules. NOVA was different than ITC, was different from adepticon.

There are small differences and huge differences. NOVA and ITC, for example, weren't all that far apart. No Retreat, there's significantly more difference.

Offering No Retreat for LVO is like saying: "All humans have different fingerprints so it doesn't matter if we compare a human print to a gorilla print". At least both prints offered should be human.

NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

I suspect that if the top tier players used the bottom tier armies, those armies would be nerfed.

Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

Ahh yes I'm quite sure you'll prove this by winning the next major event by winning it?

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

SO they were very different in that one used rules and missions that the other did not, but you know other than being different they were not different? Seriously? I mean there were plenty of years where ITC events allowed FW and NOVA did not. The events were not all that similar when you look at winning lists etc because the rules were so different. So how can you say, there was minimal difference?

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

SO they were very different in that one used rules and missions that the other did not, but you know other than being different they were not different? Seriously? I mean there were plenty of years where ITC events allowed FW and NOVA did not. The events were not all that similar when you look at winning lists etc because the rules were so different. So how can you say, there was minimal difference?

Way to wrongly paraphrase while also dodging the question. "Plenty of years" is off the mark because we were specifically discussing the tail end of 7th and the WarConvo. The topic was to find an off-meta list that did something similar to that feat. .

At thatt time, the differences between NOVA and ITC were fairly small when it came to what we were discussing: placing well with an off-meta list in a meta environment.

As I said in the previous post, if you want to outline the specific differences between the two at that time and why you think that makes No Retreat closer to something like LVO than NOVA, I'm all for it. I already outlined the No Retreat differences.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

Ahh yes I'm quite sure you'll prove this by winning the next major event by winning it?

I’ve run and won plenty of events and been gaming for nearly 30 years, so yep, I know what I’m talking about, people can keep pattingb themselves on the back and think they are amazing while clubbing baby seals all day long, but it doesn’t make them skilled for spammin the most obvious power units.

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

I'm sure Formosa could have won if he had tried. He just doesn't care enough to, or something.

/sarcasm

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

SO they were very different in that one used rules and missions that the other did not, but you know other than being different they were not different? Seriously? I mean there were plenty of years where ITC events allowed FW and NOVA did not. The events were not all that similar when you look at winning lists etc because the rules were so different. So how can you say, there was minimal difference?

Way to wrongly paraphrase while also dodging the question. "Plenty of years" is off the mark because we were specifically discussing the tail end of 7th and the WarConvo. The topic was to find an off-meta list that did something similar to that feat. .

At thatt time, the differences between NOVA and ITC were fairly small when it came to what we were discussing: placing well with an off-meta list in a meta environment.

As I said in the previous post, if you want to outline the specific differences between the two at that time and why you think that makes No Retreat closer to something like LVO than NOVA, I'm all for it. I already outlined the No Retreat differences.

Not really wrongly paraphasing you when you say LVO, changed rules for balance, but other than changing those rules there was minimal difference. If right now I changed the rules because I think Hive Tyrants are too strong and say, hive tyrants are Now T7 with a 4+ save, but change nothing else, I'm sure that isn't a big difference to what is good right?

I Tried to find their packets to innumerate the differences but was unable to find packets from 2 years ago. Largely they would have been one using the ITC FAQ and the other not and that the missions (which are meta defining) were significantly different. Which meant one had 2++ re-rollable save, and invisiblity, and the other did not. That is a pretty large meta difference in what armies did well, Deathstars were much better at NOVA than LVO at that time. Further if we are talking about top players and "off meta lists" there have been plenty over the years you are the one that wants to zero in on a specific space of time.

I mean what exactly is your criteria for an off meta list. An Eldar/DE list placed second at the wet coast GT in 7th (more Dark Eldar). Harlequins won the March Madness GT in 2016. Khorne Daemonkin list with 6 Soul Grinders was 10th in NOVA in 2016. I'm not going to pretend that a ton of such lists exist, but if you went through all the 1 loss players at most major events in any year you will find any number of different lists that are not the "current internet wisdom".

It is easier to win with the best tools, which is why the best players use them. But if they were forced to use other tools (as long as they have some list building autonomy) I guarantee they would still do well.

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

It would almost be impressive if the game wasn't won during list construction which is what this thread is about.

I mostly play the same guy on a weekly basis. We bring power lists and play each other with them. A common phrase we say to each other is "you probably saw this coming" because the moves in this game are so glaringly obvious. You can't "outplay" anyone. It comes down to dice - who gets first turn - and quite often army matchup. Skill plays a small part in all of this.

The guy who won adepticon with 7 flyrants is better at the game than me though. I thought mawlocks were one of the worst units in the codex (and they really are) he thought outside the box though (or copied someone who did) and figured out that mawlocks while being a really crappy unit - have an uncanny ability to kill units in the movement phase - which allows for really dump deep strike shenanigans. Honestly - I don't suspect that, that interaction will be allowed to continue anyhow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

7 flyrants and 4 mawlocks lol.

 Formosa wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

So why didn't you show up with better spam and beat them (or why don't you show up to the next GW GT and do it?) Put your money where you mouth is if you will.

Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

SO they were very different in that one used rules and missions that the other did not, but you know other than being different they were not different? Seriously? I mean there were plenty of years where ITC events allowed FW and NOVA did not. The events were not all that similar when you look at winning lists etc because the rules were so different. So how can you say, there was minimal difference?

Way to wrongly paraphrase while also dodging the question. "Plenty of years" is off the mark because we were specifically discussing the tail end of 7th and the WarConvo. The topic was to find an off-meta list that did something similar to that feat. .

At thatt time, the differences between NOVA and ITC were fairly small when it came to what we were discussing: placing well with an off-meta list in a meta environment.

As I said in the previous post, if you want to outline the specific differences between the two at that time and why you think that makes No Retreat closer to something like LVO than NOVA, I'm all for it. I already outlined the No Retreat differences.

Not really wrongly paraphasing you when you say LVO, changed rules for balance, but other than changing those rules there was minimal difference. If right now I changed the rules because I think Hive Tyrants are too strong and say, hive tyrants are Now T7 with a 4+ save, but change nothing else, I'm sure that isn't a big difference to what is good right?

I Tried to find their packets to innumerate the differences but was unable to find packets from 2 years ago. Largely they would have been one using the ITC FAQ and the other not and that the missions (which are meta defining) were significantly different. Which meant one had 2++ re-rollable save, and invisiblity, and the other did not. That is a pretty large meta difference in what armies did well, Deathstars were much better at NOVA than LVO at that time. Further if we are talking about top players and "off meta lists" there have been plenty over the years you are the one that wants to zero in on a specific space of time.

I mean what exactly is your criteria for an off meta list. An Eldar/DE list placed second at the wet coast GT in 7th (more Dark Eldar). Harlequins won the March Madness GT in 2016. Khorne Daemonkin list with 6 Soul Grinders was 10th in NOVA in 2016. I'm not going to pretend that a ton of such lists exist, but if you went through all the 1 loss players at most major events in any year you will find any number of different lists that are not the "current internet wisdom".

It is easier to win with the best tools, which is why the best players use them. But if they were forced to use other tools (as long as they have some list building autonomy) I guarantee they would still do well.

Another factor you have to consider is some of these list you are calling "off meta" aren't bad lists. They certainly aren't low teir armies. Deamonkin was very strong in it's time - it's just - why would you play it when you could just play tzeentch daemons with 2++ rerolls? A low teir army would be something like...space marines without gladius and no deathstar. (essentially automatic lose vs any serious army in 7th ed)

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

So why didn't you show up with better spam and beat them (or why don't you show up to the next GW GT and do it?) Put your money where you mouth is if you will.

Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

 Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

What is the reward for doing all of this? Spend 1500 dollars and countless hours to build and paint your new army (that practically none of your friends will want to play against). Spend 1000 dollars traveling. For a chance to win 5k at LVO once a year? Why? That's not profitable. Nor will it be enjoyable. I dread the 3 game tournments I play in locally - it is back breaking playing 40k all day.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

Actually yes, that is all it seems to take, look at all these Adepticon lists and you will see a main theme emerge, spam what works, rinse and repeat and hope you dont come across a more powerful spam list.

 Formosa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

Actually yes, that is all it seems to take, look at all these Adepticon lists and you will see a main theme emerge, spam what works, rinse and repeat and hope you dont come across a more powerful spam list.

Why do the same few people keep winning despite having to fight multiple iterations of the same spam list that they themselves are running, with only minor variations?

 Formosa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

Actually yes, that is all it seems to take, look at all these Adepticon lists and you will see a main theme emerge, spam what works, rinse and repeat and hope you dont come across a more powerful spam list.

Right, so you'd pretty easily beat someone like say Matt Root or Nick Nanivanti in a game then?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

Yep, thats exactly what I think it is, lets see those same players take a normal list, and by normal i mean a run of the mill 40k list that normal people use, then win, its not gonna happen because its not about skill anymore, its about taking the most simple point and click units and spamming them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, if we assume all that's required to win is a spam list, then surely it should be easy to identify said list, purchase it for a pittance on Ebay, put some colours on it (if you didn't just buy it wholesale) and start winning entire tournaments?

Actually yes, that is all it seems to take, look at all these Adepticon lists and you will see a main theme emerge, spam what works, rinse and repeat and hope you dont come across a more powerful spam list.

Right, so you'd pretty easily beat someone like say Matt Root or Nick Nanivanti in a game then?

Could I beat them, yes, will i get the chance, more than likely not, take two of those Tyrant lists that are identical and it will come down to pure luck who wins.

 Formosa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

Yep, thats exactly what I think it is, lets see those same players take a normal list, and by normal i mean a run of the mill 40k list that normal people use, then win, its not gonna happen because its not about skill anymore, its about taking the most simple point and click units and spamming them.

So you're essentially claiming that the consistent best winners of several major events across the world do it repeatedly because they're supernaturally lucky, rather than admitting there might be some element of skill.
Okay.

 Formosa wrote:


Could I beat them, yes, will i get the chance, more than likely not, take two of those Tyrant lists that are identical and it will come down to pure luck who wins.

This is so laughable it isn't even worth considering. If this was the case then anyone could take that list and win a major but we consistently see people netlisting those lists and doing poorly with them. But I guess those guys who win consistently are just consistently lucky.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

Yep, thats exactly what I think it is, lets see those same players take a normal list, and by normal i mean a run of the mill 40k list that normal people use, then win, its not gonna happen because its not about skill anymore, its about taking the most simple point and click units and spamming them.

So you're essentially claiming that the consistent best winners of several major events across the world do it repeatedly because they're supernaturally lucky, rather than admitting there might be some element of skill.
Okay.

The delusion is yours if you think it takes any skill to play that tyrant list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Could I beat them, yes, will i get the chance, more than likely not, take two of those Tyrant lists that are identical and it will come down to pure luck who wins.

This is so laughable it isn't even worth considering. If this was the case then anyone could take that list and win a major but we consistently see people netlisting those lists and doing poorly with them. But I guess those guys who win consistently are just consistently lucky.

Yep, it comes down to a lot of factors but yes they are getting lucky, lets see a mirror match with that tyrant list eh.