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.

It's army and also skill, because if you want to have a nice coloured army and play well you have to get yourself an army that you love not some gak which you will stop collecting 5 minutes later. If you find an army of your dream then believe..... YOU WILL DO GREAT.

I feel that skill and chance play a good part in the game, and army choice is not really a factor its army composition. Just because I play codex X doesn't mean anything, if I'm not playing to the strengths of the codex X

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I feel that skill and chance play a good part in the game, and army choice is not really a factor its army composition. Just because I play codex X doesn't mean anything, if I'm not playing to the strengths of the codex X

Unless it's a ward codex with no weaknesses...

I picked "other" because, while it is not divided evenly, the current meta does add some skill back into the game, but is still dependent on the dice and what army you choose.

Necro much?

I used to think it was mostly dice and army list. Then I played someone who was good (winner of the state masters tournament). First game he beat me 18-0! Next game he brought a very un-competitive list to give me a chance. Still kicked my ass. Not as badly, but still. He says it's about knowing your army and your opponents (amongst other things). If you know what your units are capable of, and how to get the best out of them, you don't need the latest overpowered list. Just play your cards right and you'll win (unless your opponent is too good for you or has a significantly more powerful army).

 Selym wrote:
Necro much?

This poll appeared on the front page the 15th. So no, not necro much. The admins obviously want these threads to be open and running, which means you can probably stop making such posts in this sub forum.

mostly army, with a decent army and crap dice I can still beat a worse player with a comparable army. You might as well take an OP army for when the dice don't behave though..

Depends on what game you are playing, if playing against someone who doesnt know the rules nor what he is doing then its pretty moot. If you are playing against a very good player, try and say its luck or army then. Yes some lists have hard counters which you can argue it is the army list beating you but mostly at the top tables at tournies, its skill.

I choose army because there are certain match ups that you just can't win; and I think over the course of a game you roll enough dice that it generally evens out.

It's complicated and army based. I'm going to throw out some generalization numbers. Restrain yourselves from having an ulcer.

You could say top tier spam lists leave maybe 10% up to chance, 30% skill, 60% "I win because I'm a necron flying circus" or whatever.

DAEMONS, on the other hand... 50% Oh man I have so many charts (luck), 25% Skill, 25% "Eat me, 5+ Invul with rerolls and FNP everywhere"

The game is based entirely on the roll of the dice. So it's 90% chance.. You can have the best army and the best strategy but if the dice are against you it wont matter.

I can't believe that so many people are giving the credit/blame to luck!

First, there is no such thing as luck, just probability, which evens out for everyone over time. I don't believe any player is inherently, consistently "unlucky" with their dice game after game. If you roll enough dice over enough games, it evens out. Yes, a bad roll at the wrong time can be the difference between victory and defeat, but think about why your game came down to that single roll in the first place and you'll realize there were things you could have done better in order to have control of the game so that a few rolls at the end didn't make all the difference.

To me, blaming the dice for a loss is a weak excuse, almost as bad as blaming the refs in sports! If you play well enough, one bad die roll or one bad call by a ref won't cost you the game.

And dice may cost you one game, but it cannot explain why someone consistently wins or someone else consistently loses. The dice even out and player skill is what separates players over a large enough sample of games.

The dice keep it fun and unpredictable, but they don't determine why some players win consistently.

Tau is the only faction I have ever seen (and likely will ever see) table another army at the top of turn 2. Game was less than 1000 points, but STILL.

With that said, any army can be played at a fairly competitive, but balanced, level, but the TFG's seem to have highlighted that if the most, most, most broken list from each army were played, one or two of those armies are clearly more broken than the rest.

In a non-tourney-triptide-demonfarm-whathaveyou environment, I'd say it's about 50/50 between skill and luck, with the army choice only providing variation in play styles.

That is a tough one to call. I voted for a bit of everything. I've played a couple of games where tactically I thought I was in a better position than my opponent, but then kept rolling mainly 1's so my units just end up fluffing it. Nothing worse than having 2+ saves and continuously rolling 1's for those and any shooting or melee attacks

No matter how well you plan, if you roll poorly, then any strategy/ tactics that you formulated just go out the window. Having said that, those kind of games are still fun and can be pretty comedic which is why I love the game of 40k. If it was predictable and everything was guaranteed then it would soon become a dull game. The randomness/luck is one of the best parts of the game

Here are some threads I started a little while ago where some people have given examples of funny chance incidents in games. These kind of things are what I love about playing 40k.

Amusing battle stories:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/643893.page


Freakishly good/bad luck:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/663068.page

I think it's Army list and Skill.
You can create your own luck through your skill. If you can get yourself where its two die v one then you will always have better chances logically... not luckily...
... that being said a single 6 beats two 1s.

Atlas Terrain wrote:
I think it's Army list and Skill.
You can create your own luck through your skill. If you can get yourself where its two die v one then you will always have better chances logically... not luckily...
... that being said a single 6 beats two 1s.

Except on morale checks, but those are rarely pivotal events.

People talking about skill and the right army being the most important don't realise that all you are doing is increasing your chances.
If I swap out a squad of marines for a squad of possessed I am increasing my chances of winning close combat.
If I decide to shoot at a squad of grots instead of a squad of boys I am increasing my chances of killing a unit.

40k is a game all about increasing your chance of winning. Yes you might be hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s (there by increasing your chance of killing me) but a good army and skill won't save you from rolling all 1s.

An example:
My flying daemon prince of nurgle vs a reg squad of marines. They fired 8 shots - six 6s! Wounded with 5 I rolled three 1s.If it was just down to army rules and not chance he wouldn't have wounded me.

I think the most important aspect is choosing your army (Particularly among the WAAC guys, choosing all OP lists and units trumps everything in this game because the bell curve on a d6 is so small I don't care how tactical you are, if the guy shows up with units you can't hurt, you're in trouble...and of course the answer to this is always, build a better army to meet him, so...).
Then it is skill on the table (It is all about match-ups for me...I must make sure I get my units into combat with units they have an advantage over, and avoid my opponents units that I do not have an answer for).
I put chance last because SO many d6's are rolled in 40k that the averages show up, not every game, they're still dice, but over the course of 3? Yes. (Yeah I have seen guys roll bad too so not an absolute, but I really think if you write down every single roll from a typical game, you will see statistics does work...) I have another suggestion for those who think they roll bad consistently...change dice (yes, we like to think those little cubes are random, but manufacturing can skew them...), and if that doesn't work, run horde armies that get to roll a LOT! The more dice you roll, the better!
I doubt any of this is new, but there's my opinion.

Well, how much Skill or luck is all dependant on your army faction.

Some armies (eldar) already have reliable above average rolls to make, with Rerolls on top, and special rules that buff your army.

Other armies (orks) have more rolls but below average, with worse results, and very limited rerolls and rules that hurt your army.

So if you're rerolling your already good rolls, and ignoring most negative modifyers with your awesome rules, that sounds like easy mode to me.

Mostly army, then split between skill and luck. You can be the best general in the world, but rotten luck or terrible lists will get you crushed. But an average general with average luck who plays a power list (i.e. scatterbike spam) has the scales tipped in their favor by simply putting their army together well.

40k has gating depending on how high you wanna get. First, to stand any chance you need a strong competitive list. This will give you the ability to win. Then you need skill. The only way you make too table at lvo is to be very very good at the army you play. Then luck, a few terrible dice rolls are all that seoerate most top tier players using top tier lists. It all starts in army building for us plebs though so that was my vote.

50% Army
30% Luck
20% Skill

Anybody who says skill and luck over army plays with "that" army. I quote "I'm really good with all these scatter bikes and I just know the best way of using my wraithknight. Oh and these are just d weapons. Where, everywhere. But I've mastered them."

Fine, go and pick up those scatter bikes and win a large event, I dare you.

There's a reason why the same 5 or so players are the only ones winning top quality events on a competitive circuit made up of hundreds.

Old thread, really needs new poll.

Merely 6th to 7th has thrown a spanner in the works. Random cards and the placing of objectives before choosing sides...

In a tournament setting,

50% Army Choice
25% Skill
25% Luck

In a friendly game using cards and objectives
50% Luck
25% Skill
25% Army choice

In a friendly game using just kill points
40% Army Choice
40% Skill
20% Luck

I feel it takes a bit of everything. A skilled player with a bit of luck can win against an unskilled player with a theoretically strong army.

Of course this does mean that good players with strong armies and the knowledge to maximise chamce for thier advantage will be difficult to deal with, but the amount of work that takes to pull off generally makes it okay.

 Rampage wrote:
Fine, go and pick up those scatter bikes and win a large event, I dare you.

There's a reason why the same 5 or so players are the only ones winning top quality events on a competitive circuit made up of hundreds.

Don't most events play with their own set of House Rules to try and reign (a bit) the broken Power dexes / units ?

Skill 20%
Chance 40%
Army 40%