Switch Theme:

How good of a win record do you need to be a 'good' player? Please read before voting.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
What win-loss ratio would be required for someone to be a 'good' player?
1-1
Better than 1-1
2-1
3-1
5-1
10-1
Other/confused/no opinion

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

The scoreboard doesn't lie. I think if you're winning 3 out of 4, you're pretty good.

This is a dice game. Great General lose to bad players. That isn't what happens most of the time. But wins and losses all count. Anyone who tries to pull the "Yeah but who did you play" card is going to get the finger from me. Because heres my answer: EVERYONE WHO DARED.

So a win loss record of about 75% tells me you're competitive and someone I need to respect. If you lose more than you win, you're just someone I need to respect. Because if i let my guard down, you'll beat me. Just like everyone else, no one is unbeatable.


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The first several games I played in 5th edition were with Dark Angels and I would lose every one by a significant margin.

Now in 6th edition I play Necrons more than anything and I have a tendency to destroy most armies with little effort, but I think a lot of that is the uncompetitive meta I'm in.

The game is too unbalanced to really judge the skill of a player based on win/loss ratio alone.


Sekhmet - Dynasty 4000pts Greenwing - 2000pts Deathguard - 1500pts Daemons of Nurgle - 1000pts ~320pts
 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

But its not so unbalanced as to ignore it.

Wins and losses are the point of the game. If you ignore that you're ignoring the ability of some people to ADJUST to that meta, and that adjustment is a part of being a good general.

Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I think I'm playing an entirely different game...

I'd rather my win/loss be 60/40 or worse, personally. Any higher, and either you're not challenged, or you're the the tabletop version of pub stomping.

Obviously, major tournaments, or prepairing for them doesn't count...
   
Made in us
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot





Equestria/USA

I lose a lot. I go into games expecting to lose, that way if I win it's a better feeling. So my records aren't good by any means. Thinking back my sisters are 4 wins, 10 losses, and 1 tie.
Imperial fists are 2 win, 4 losses, 0 ties.
And grey knights are 2 wins, 3 losses, 2 ties. I play for fun and don't remember every game, but I need to start remembering and writing battle reports for myself.

Black Templars 4000 Deathwatch 6000
 
   
Made in us
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator





Good Ol' Texas

As others have said, it depends. I have a terrible win/loss ratio, but I almost exclusively play in tournaments and against competitive players. I've been able to sneak out eins against against them and others who are in the same types of situations.

In other words, just because you have a 5/27 win/loss ratio doesn't mean you're a terrible player.

Lucarikx

Absolutely not kidding about that ratio btw.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 17:35:58



 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Win records are largely meaningless, the quality of one's opposition and the will of the dice matter a lot more.

If the dice hate you, I don't care if you're the best player in the world, you're going to lose and there won't be anything you can do about it. We've all had those games. I played games with/against some of very notable names, and one I tabled with very few casualties of my own because he failed almost every single 3+ armor save he had to make (apparently my Hydra Flakk Tanks upgraded to AP2 Ignores Cover autocannons that game...) and flubbed the two Ld9 morale checks he had to make. Likewise I lost a game at a tournament that by all accounts I should have won because none of my BS4 shooting wanted to hit and I consistently just couldn't roll anything higher than 2" on a difficult terrain roll.

Likewise, having a 100% win record doesn't mean much if your opposition is terrible. If you're averaging a 33% win rate against known very good players, you're probably doing pretty well.

Generally, if you're winning 50% of your games against your typical opposition, you're probably "good enough" for all practical purposes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 17:47:34


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

In your local pond, you might be the big fish and your win/loss record might show that. A trip to a bigger pond or lake might show you how much of a minnow you really are!


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

I'll echo the two main sentinements here. 40k W/L ratios are meaningless because of the VAST sea of uncontrolled variables at play, and that the definition of a good player appropriately lands outside of how many games they win or lose.

As for measuring player skill, it seems to me that there are only two main ways to do it. The first is to play dozens and dozens of mirror matches with symmetrical terrain against the same opponent again and again. That will kill off a lot of these uncontrolled variables, and will start to make a dent in the problem of that it's the dice that ultimately decide the game.

The second is in the lists. If a noob plays against a player with a flying circus, and then plays against someone with taudar, and both of the players crush the noob comprehensively, which is the better player? It's too hard to tell. Meanwhile, if a noob plays against a taudar player, and also against a foot DE player, and gets trounced both times, then we can easily say that the player who brought the DE list is the better player, as he can achieve results to a greater extent than the handicap he took (took a list that was half as strong, but did more than half as well, for example).

Of course, for this to work, you still need to play dozens of games, on symmetrical boards, etc. to control for the other variables at play.

And even then, it just says that you're better than that one other player, and that you're only better than them then (you might get rusty, or your opponent might get better as time progresses).



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 18:01:45


Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in za
Fixture of Dakka




Temple Prime

Context matters.

Seal Clubbing against a bunch of people who have no idea what they're doing gets you a lopsided win ratio.

It does not make you good.

Playing against a bunch of people who are as good if not better than you tends to give you an even or even poor win ratio.

It does not necessarily make you average or poor.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.



 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





When you show up for a match is your opponent glad to see you?

When your playing are you both having fun and not fighting about every minor rule?

Then you are a good player.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

Oh, I could also add that you can tell a good player by his win ratio if the player has exactly the win ratio they want. Bad players will sort of win a bunch or lose a bunch due to factors beyond their control. Good players, on the other hand, know how to change things to win more when they're losing too much, and to lose more when they're winning to much.

Accuracy of win ratio to desired ratio would be the sign of a good player, but it's clouded, of course, by the fact that not everyone wants the same win ratio.


Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I consider myself "good" because the last 3 out of 5 games I called turn that the game was going to get out of reach for me based off just the initial set ups. 0-5 suddenly looks like 3-2!
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

Its interesting that actual results against real opponents and not this theory hammer non sense is trivialized.

I play against 4 of the meanest list wranglers you'll ever meet and three of them have notable tourney records. I myself also have that same notable tourney record. Then there are about ten very dangerous players locally who have gotten much better playing the five of us and while we five do tend to dominate, those same ten go to tournies elsewhere and kick ass. Which tells me that there's 15 good generals here. Then there are the up and comers and we are all very careful to try and teach them because good opponents make us all better.

But I think that the game is complicated enough that good players stand out but simple enough that good or even great players still have to EARN their wins. Because RARELY are you playing "baby seals SO often that it skews the win loss ratio.

So based on that I think its WAY overblown as to how many "baby seals" there REALLY are and they don't STAY baby seals for long. My analysis is that winning 3 out of 4 is plenty...PLENTY of evidence that you're good. Short of a tiny pool of abject idiot opponents with worse lists, its hard to do that in a dice game.

Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ca
Angered Reaver Arena Champion






I chose better than 50% winrate, but will add in the assumption that you are playing the best opposition at your disposal.

If you play against the strongest players, and win your share or better, you are a good player.

A great player can take on even the strongest players and win more often than not.


Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000 
   
Made in ca
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





I tend to go with 'if you win more than you lose' you are a good player. 'Course, a lot depends on your level (and quantity) of competition too, being a big fish in a small pond doesn't say too much about your skill when compared to being the best of the best in a larger forum.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 19:14:15


 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob





United States

I like to think I suck and I'm complete garbage at this game and me losing to some of Belial's finest DW assault termies last night proves it.

Btw you guys are ridiculous there is no way to associate WL with skill without any detail or context on the matter.

I am the kinda ork that takes his own washing machine apart, puts new bearings in it, then puts it back together, and it still works. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

Jancoran wrote:Its interesting that actual results against real opponents and not this theory hammer non sense is trivialized.

Statistics clean out all uncontrolled variables, which makes them a model of objectivity.

Saying that you can derive truth from a few handfuls of games is like saying that jumping up in the air is basically the same as flying to the moon.

Having a better win/loss ratio is like saying "Yeah, well I jumped 4 feet into the air instead of 2, I'm twice as good at jumping into near earth orbit than you".



Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in za
Fixture of Dakka




Temple Prime

 Jancoran wrote:
Its interesting that actual results against real opponents and not this theory hammer non sense is trivialized.

I play against 4 of the meanest list wranglers you'll ever meet and three of them have notable tourney records. I myself also have that same notable tourney record. Then there are about ten very dangerous players locally who have gotten much better playing the five of us and while we five do tend to dominate, those same ten go to tournies elsewhere and kick ass. Which tells me that there's 15 good generals here. Then there are the up and comers and we are all very careful to try and teach them because good opponents make us all better.

But I think that the game is complicated enough that good players stand out but simple enough that good or even great players still have to EARN their wins. Because RARELY are you playing "baby seals SO often that it skews the win loss ratio.

So based on that I think its WAY overblown as to how many "baby seals" there REALLY are and they don't STAY baby seals for long. My analysis is that winning 3 out of 4 is plenty...PLENTY of evidence that you're good. Short of a tiny pool of abject idiot opponents with worse lists, its hard to do that in a dice game.

It really isn't all that hard to find seals to club if one is a person who puts so much attachment to their W/L ratio that they need curbstomp victories to make them feel better about themselves.

Sure actively hunting newbies to stomp for the sake of a number pretty much instantly outs one as a douche, but one can do it.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.



 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Since 2013, I've lost maybe half a dozen games. I play at least once a week, usually twice or three times. (Averaging two.)
Win Loss records mean precisely jack. Most of these games were against players at my local GW, most of whom are simply awful at the game. Over half my games against them, I handicap myself horribly and try to help them, and I still win.
Out of my hundred or so last games, there have been maybe five that felt like good, solid victories. I usually enjoy losses more than wins, just because I learn a lot more from them than I do from wins. (Unless it's just because my opponent took a stupid overpowered list and I brought something nerfed because I thought it was going to be a fluff game.)
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Peoria IL

 Jimsolo wrote:
So, I've been seeing, for some time now, people who have win/loss records in their sigs. I've got a whole thread to keep track of my own.

So, how good of a record would someone need to have in order to be considered a 'good' player, in your opinion? For the sake of this poll question, assume that the person in question plays (on average) opponents of equal skill level to himself.


Well this is an impossible question. If I play opponents of equal skill, I'm 1-1, by definition. In fact a good player would NEED to be of superior skill or, again, they would be average. Not sure what your trying to ask, but this currently make no sense.

Now, if you're asking at what win loss ratio would a player who interacts with a diverse cross section of 40k players and at leasts makes it to RTTs and the like, be considered "good" (which is not at all what your question says), I'd say at least a 5:3 W/L ratio if not 2:1. In my experience the average 40k player is a fair to poor tactician and probably not much better as a list builder (which is fine, many people are in it for the modeling or narrative aspects, but it shows in their grasp of the rules, the system, and just lack of creative thinking and problem solving... not to mention mental fortitude).

DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+
Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0

QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2
One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





McKenzie, TN

I don't think W/L/D ratio is meaningful for the most part. There is some meaning to stating you beat a GT winner 3 times to their 1 win against you (it takes skill to go 5+ games without loosing) but you can very easily get ridiculous W/L/D ratios if you don't go to tournaments. If you are going to GTs and make it to the final tables regularly then you are probably pretty good winning in this game.

As for what is a good player. They are some one who does well playing the game 40K which has a system by which one player wins and another loses. You cannot play or win painting, sportsmanship, etc. In fact the idea of "winning" sportsmanship is hilarious.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 22:55:46


 
   
Made in ru
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





London, England

As others have said, the win to loss ratio on it's own is pretty meaningless in determining how good a player someone is. You need to know a whole bunch of other stuff to tell you that.
   
Made in us
Shade of Despair and Torment







I'm a good player, win or lose, because I have fun!

***** Space Hulk Necromunda Genestealer Patriarch Ripper Jacks Broodlord ALIENS THEME https://www.ebay.com/sch/carcharodons/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






When using the word "good" to denote "skilled", I don't like Win/Loss alone. I like ELO ratings (or other strength-of-schedule type ratings) much better. But that is hard to track in a non-competitive setting.


When using the world "good" to denote "enjoyable", then Win/Loss means absolutely feth-all. In fact, most people I've seen brag about being undefeated or 52-1 or whatnot turn out to be serious douchebags at the table.

   
Made in us
Been Around the Block





Even the greatest generals in history got their butts kicked from time to time, so worry less about win-loss ratios and more about learning from your defeats and your victories.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Thinking about it, I cannot put a number on my win loss (except at tournies) as people have said before they dont think its a worthwhile number to keep track of, I think the same as that.

I show my tourny placings in my sig, as I think thats more revelent if at all, plus now rankingshq has bit the dust its a good as place as any to show it.

I do remember one guy putting his win loss ratio on here, he was local to me but never could make a game with me, he was undeafted according to his ratio as well.... lol.

40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





TN/AL/MS state line.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the win/loss is pretty much useless as a measure. There just aren't enough games being played out there- and no ladder to keep track of player rankings. Not that a ladder would help much, because that can be gamed as well.

A good warhammer player would be hard to define tbh. And the definition could be so vague. Winning a large tournament could be a good indicator, but sometimes paint scores are added in there(I may actually be out of date on that), which if you're a good painter does that make you a good player? The rock/scissors/paper nature of 40k can have an effect as well. A good player could be pushed to the bottom because of several bad match-ups starting out.

I just don't think a win/loss ratio is a good indicator of player skill.

Black Bases and Grey Plastic Forever:My quaint little hobby blog.

40k- The Kumunga Swarm (more)
Count Mortimer’s Private Security Force/Excavation Team (building)
Kabal of the Grieving Widow (less)

Plus other games- miniature and cardboard both. 
   
Made in ca
Evasive Pleasureseeker



Lost in a blizzard, somewhere near Toronto

 Vaktathi wrote:
Win records are largely meaningless, the quality of one's opposition and the will of the dice matter a lot more.

If the dice hate you, I don't care if you're the best player in the world, you're going to lose and there won't be anything you can do about it. We've all had those games. I played games with/against some of very notable names, and one I tabled with very few casualties of my own because he failed almost every single 3+ armor save he had to make (apparently my Hydra Flakk Tanks upgraded to AP2 Ignores Cover autocannons that game...) and flubbed the two Ld9 morale checks he had to make. Likewise I lost a game at a tournament that by all accounts I should have won because none of my BS4 shooting wanted to hit and I consistently just couldn't roll anything higher than 2" on a difficult terrain roll.


+1000000 this!

Personally I like to think that I'm a pretty solid general when it comes to tactics & decision making, but my dice are 99% abysmal - especially when I play with power armour!
It's normal for me to have games with barely a 40% to-hit ratio with BS4+ units...
My armour saves pass rate tend to be around 30% on a good day... (but I rock invulns for some reason?!)
Ld10 is akin to Ld2 when I roll for it... (unless they're Tzeentch Daemons!)
Dangerous Terrain tests may as well be "take an automatic wound" I've failed that many of them... (followed by numerous failed armour saves naturally)
Difficult Terrain is pretty much at most a 3" move, though I've had plenty of games where my unit has moved a grand total of 10-12" in 5 turns...
FMC's don't exist for me because they're 99.9% guaranteed to face plant after a single test...
My Plasma weapons have killed more of my own guys than my enemies...
Rolling for reserves is pointless - mine only ever come in en mass once it's automatic...
Enemy vehicles are indestructible gods of war against my armies... I hated 5th edition entirely because of them!!! I had a tournament where I faced off vs. 3 IG mechanised armies, mech Sisters and Speed Freeks and killed a grand total of 1 Leman Russ, 2 Trukks and an Open-topped Sentinel!
Etc, etc...



Dice simply hate me, but it doesn't stop me from trying to at least give my opponent a good laugh at just how many things can go horribly wrong in a single game!

Hence why I love my Tzeentch Daemons so much, because I can content myself with the knowledge that my army never actually "loses" per say, rather everything simply went perfectly according to "The Plan(tm)."

 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 Kain wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Its interesting that actual results against real opponents and not this theory hammer non sense is trivialized.

I play against 4 of the meanest list wranglers you'll ever meet and three of them have notable tourney records. I myself also have that same notable tourney record. Then there are about ten very dangerous players locally who have gotten much better playing the five of us and while we five do tend to dominate, those same ten go to tournies elsewhere and kick ass. Which tells me that there's 15 good generals here. Then there are the up and comers and we are all very careful to try and teach them because good opponents make us all better.

But I think that the game is complicated enough that good players stand out but simple enough that good or even great players still have to EARN their wins. Because RARELY are you playing "baby seals SO often that it skews the win loss ratio.

So based on that I think its WAY overblown as to how many "baby seals" there REALLY are and they don't STAY baby seals for long. My analysis is that winning 3 out of 4 is plenty...PLENTY of evidence that you're good. Short of a tiny pool of abject idiot opponents with worse lists, its hard to do that in a dice game.

It really isn't all that hard to find seals to club if one is a person who puts so much attachment to their W/L ratio that they need curbstomp victories to make them feel better about themselves.

Sure actively hunting newbies to stomp for the sake of a number pretty much instantly outs one as a douche, but one can do it.


I never met a player like this, nor a pool of seals deep enough. Certainly not a tourney player. That skepticism seems a bit over blown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kain wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Its interesting that actual results against real opponents and not this theory hammer non sense is trivialized.

I play against 4 of the meanest list wranglers you'll ever meet and three of them have notable tourney records. I myself also have that same notable tourney record. Then there are about ten very dangerous players locally who have gotten much better playing the five of us and while we five do tend to dominate, those same ten go to tournies elsewhere and kick ass. Which tells me that there's 15 good generals here. Then there are the up and comers and we are all very careful to try and teach them because good opponents make us all better.

But I think that the game is complicated enough that good players stand out but simple enough that good or even great players still have to EARN their wins. Because RARELY are you playing "baby seals SO often that it skews the win loss ratio.

So based on that I think its WAY overblown as to how many "baby seals" there REALLY are and they don't STAY baby seals for long. My analysis is that winning 3 out of 4 is plenty...PLENTY of evidence that you're good. Short of a tiny pool of abject idiot opponents with worse lists, its hard to do that in a dice game.

It really isn't all that hard to find seals to club if one is a person who puts so much attachment to their W/L ratio that they need curbstomp victories to make them feel better about themselves.

Sure actively hunting newbies to stomp for the sake of a number pretty much instantly outs one as a douche, but one can do it.


I never met a player like this, nor a pool of seals deep enough. Certainly not a tourney player. That skepticism seems a bit over blown.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/15 04:21:21


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: