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.

40k is 100% Skill +/- 50% Luck

Luck might decide a close game, skill makes the game close

Luck will always play it's part, but I've seen enough skilled players deal with bad luck (or good luck on the opponent's part) and still manage a win against a less skilled opponent to know skill is far more important.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Is writing a tooled list that you and the internet help create by breaking a codex and ruining the game for everyone you play?

Was that to me? or just in general.

Tooled lists....aahhh I love em!! Love crushing them that is...tooled list dont bug me a bit,

You're not that good.

Both play a roll (hah, get it?), but in the end, luck is really just the percentage chance that you might get the results you want, and skill is about manipulating the percentages in a way that the odds are in your favour and not the enemy's.

A few crucial lucky rolls from an unskilled player may be able to defeat a skilled player who has unlucky rolls, but a skilled player should always play in a way that ensures that lucky rolls are difficult to attain, or easy to negate with your own rolls.

If i win it's skill, if i lose the opponent got lucky,
But truly it takes both

The skill is being able to work with the random(luck) factor

Bloodbowl serves are a perfect illustration for this. Since the success or failure of so many actions in the game resolve around a single dice roll, and failing such a roll will end their turn, luck is a major factor, but skill is just as important. A good player knows how to prioritize which actions they have to take that are automatic, or have a high chance of success, saving the risky rolls until the end. Bad luck on the dice at any point could bring his turn to an early end, but he's minimized the chances of that happening. An unskilled player might decide an 'across the field, over the defensive trolls' pass is the first thing he should do on his turn, and if he rolls anything but a 6, the pass fails and his turn is over.

In a dice based game, knowing how to maximize your odds of success is a good part of being skilled. Luck is taking down a squad of terminators with four lasguns. Skill is having four plasma guns to shoot them with, and having forced your opponent into a position where you can fire to full effect.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Is writing a tooled list that you and the internet help create by breaking a codex and ruining the game for everyone you play?

Was that to me? or just in general.

Tooled lists....aahhh I love em!! Love crushing them that is...tooled list dont bug me a bit, Im just throwing it out there for debate

was just in general. Min/maxing lists is neither skill nor luck. Its douchebaggery. BUT there is a simple solution to that....refuse to game with people like that.

Depending on what one understands as skills some armies require less to be played to good effect then other . To win a tournament with a SoB army would take huge luck and a lot of skill . To win with tau/eldar it would require luck and having a card writen down by someone , that says which targets to pick first.

60:40 luck to skill, I'd say.

I think everyone can agree that it requires both.

I think that luck plays a more significant role in the outcome as the skill-level of the players gets closer. When one player is notably more or less skilled than their opponent, luck has very little to do with the outcome.

There are people I play where I know, no matter what the dice do, I'm going to win the game. They deploy poorly, waste shots on low percentage choices, don't understand the tempo of the game, or how long it will take for them to get their men where they need them.

But, when the players are of close or equal skill, games will frequently come down to a single roll at the end of the game (does the game continue? Does this guy run far enough to make/contest an objective? Did that guy make his last armour save.)

We can all point to those games, and yes, that last roll is luck. But what put them in the position to make that last roll is skill. It's because you're watching an evenly matched game that these final dice rolls matter.

Over a long series of games, skill becomes a more relevant determinant, as luck will go both ways - and that explains why the same people do well in tournament after tournament.

 namiel wrote:
Min/maxing lists is neither skill nor luck. Its douchebaggery

This is a WAR GAME, making an effective fighting is part of war, therefore it is part of the game. You wouldn't accuse Patton of min/maxing because he spammed tanks, would you?

Compared to many other games , 40k has FAR more reliance on list building and luck.

Truth be told, there should have been other options.

Skill/Luck and Luck/Skill. You need to have the skill to use your units to their advantage while not presenting easy targets to your opponent.

It is said that 6th edition is won in the movement phase. I can understand this as it has become more of an objective game more than before. With that said, the first turn movement phase is important, however, even more important is the deployment phase.

True, it wont win you games in the deployment of your army, however, you can set yourself up to lose at that time.

 martin74 wrote:
It is said that 6th edition is won in the movement phase. I can understand this as it has become more of an objective game more than before. With that said, the first turn movement phase is important, however, even more important is the deployment phase.

True, it wont win you games in the deployment of your army, however, you can set yourself up to lose at that time.

This is very true, many of my opponent's have thrown the game away just by deploying their army poorly.

before my lists were compettive, i won a game vs the most compettive player at my meta, sorely by luck.

now that im good, it takes skill to win.

conclusion....
it takes skill to win, but luck helps

It is mainly skill that decides the outcome.A skilled player will know what tools to use (list building) and how to use said tools (deployment, target priority, objectives, etc.)

You can teach someone the rules and give them a tournament steamroller net-list, but the new player can still get stomped by a veteran using a semi-competitive list.I'd say luck only comes into play in 1/5 games.

Every loss I've incurred can be traced back to poor deployment or some other blunder (playing too passively has nipped me a few times).

It's both, but luck can be a huge factor in losing a game you should have won or making a comeback in a game you should have lost.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
It's both, but luck can be a huge factor in losing a game you should have won or making a comeback in a game you should have lost.

This; close games = luck. List building = king.

I'd say it's 40% list building, 20% luck and 40% field skill.

You need to build the proper lists because some units are just trash. Sure, you may have an example of some guy making them work but against a good player with a min/maxed list it's just shooting yourself in the foot. The dice rolls will affect the outcome of the game but most of 40k is skewing the odds in your favor. Then there is field skill which is the ability to know where to put your units and who to mess up.

25% luck
25% skill

50% the amount of money you spent on your army and how much of a powergamer you are

Sad to see every flavor of the month army become a haven for WAAC gimps, just for them to move on once the army gets nerfed.

Luck (good or bad) is summed up as those things completely beyond your control.

However Skill is the ability to turn bad situations around as well as the ability to fully capitalize on the good ones.

It takes skill to build lists, prioritize targets, understand deployment options/placement, increase advantage through movement, etc.

In short, a skilled player will have accounted for bad luck before the game even started and have multiple plans ready to kick in.

 AntomanElven wrote:
25% luck
25% skill

50% the amount of money you spent on your army and how much of a powergamer you are

Sad to see every flavor of the month army become a haven for WAAC gimps, just for them to move on once the army gets nerfed.

This is what keeps GW in business.

neither, it's 90% list building/spamming cheese.

The thread is making me laugh. How many people here have acutally won a big tourny?.

To say its luck, its not. For a good experinced player they will play the averages, luck can affect that in small doses but overall the averages will win out out luck. Roll 10 d6 you may get 4 6's, roll 100 d6 it will start to average itself out. Good players know their averages and can factor in, to a extent, luckly or unlucky dice rolls.

Good players will also be able to look at their opponents list and instantly build a game plan, they know what part of the opponents list is a target priotiy and what isnt, they know what part of their list can counter high proitiy targets in their opponents list.

List building is important, but something that is much much more important is learning your list. Having played 50 odd games with my current list around the same points levels (1500 to 1850) i know exactly what it can and cannot do and how to apporach many situations with it. If I gave my current list to someone else to play they will probably lose with it while I probably wouldnt.

To say it is luck counters the big name players placing top 10 in many tournies.

To say it is list building counters experince (how comes jy2 is still doing well with necrons, hardly the newest thing now. Jy2 has played hundreds if not more games with his crons he knows them inside out). The new dexs have altered this a little but still a good player with a bad list should beat a bad player with a good list, it all depends on knowing how to use your army

i would say 70% Skill, 20% list building, 10% luck.

It's still mostly skill, but 6th Ed. is an attempt to make 'luck' or randomness a much bigger factor. The best players will still win most of the time but with more random elements it allows for lesser players to win when before they had little chance. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on personal perspective.

MarkyMark wrote:
The thread is making me laugh. How many people here have acutally won a big tourny?.

To say its luck, its not. For a good experinced player they will play the averages, luck can affect that in small doses but overall the averages will win out out luck. Roll 10 d6 you may get 4 6's, roll 100 d6 it will start to average itself out. Good players know their averages and can factor in, to a extent, luckly or unlucky dice rolls.

Good players will also be able to look at their opponents list and instantly build a game plan, they know what part of the opponents list is a target priotiy and what isnt, they know what part of their list can counter high proitiy targets in their opponents list.

List building is important, but something that is much much more important is learning your list. Having played 50 odd games with my current list around the same points levels (1500 to 1850) i know exactly what it can and cannot do and how to apporach many situations with it. If I gave my current list to someone else to play they will probably lose with it while I probably wouldnt.

To say it is luck counters the big name players placing top 10 in many tournies.

To say it is list building counters experince (how comes jy2 is still doing well with necrons, hardly the newest thing now. Jy2 has played hundreds if not more games with his crons he knows them inside out). The new dexs have altered this a little but still a good player with a bad list should beat a bad player with a good list, it all depends on knowing how to use your army

i would say 70% Skill, 20% list building, 10% luck.

For the most part I agree, but I'd incorporate list building as part of skill, because it takes skill to design a good list and know the subtleties of the list. There's a reason why people can't just netlist and win, it's because they haven't adjusted the list to their own playstyle and explored its nuances.

I'd say its mostly Listbuilding thenn skill thenn luck.

A list with the best units from a codex vs one that has some good and some worse is gonna win most of the time. Skill can help even things out but most moves are ovious even to unskilled players.

Skill gets your units where they need to be, with enough tools to do their job. You go by the odds and that should over enough rolls make what you want to happen do so.

We all had that one game where the oponent yust rolled good all game and you had snake eyes. That one crucial roll that fails despite the odds in your favor, or that lone guardsman stopping a towering demon prince.

It's a bit of both i think.