Does Skill Exist in 40K?

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.

**Verviedi**

At my FLGS, when people who are new come in, the manager usually shows off a model that is not competitively viable such as a Morkanaught, and explains that the "Internet hates this model, and they call it useless and terrible, but since the game is tactical, if you know how to use it, it's one of the best units."

This brought up a question. Is this true? Is it actually possible to compensate for crappiness by using a model with skill?

**niv-mizzet**

Skill IS a thing in 40k. There's no way I could have such crappy rolls and still win a lot without it.

That said, using good lists to begin with has a bigger impact than skill does.

It's like 60% list writing 30% skill 10% dice luck.

If you're at a tourney and include the lot draw for your opponent as part of the luck factor, then the luck factor shoots WAAAY up.

**CrownAxe**

Skill is a thing in 40k. If it wasn't then you could give someone who has never played the game before any list and they'd have just as good of odds winning the next GT.

The thing about skill though is that its effectiveness is relative to your opponent's skill. If you are an expert player playing against an intermediate player then you can total beat the intermediate player with mediocre units even if they were using a tournament list. But if your opponent is also an expert player then he's just as good as you are but also has the advantage of having a stronger list.

**Jimsolo**

I think skill is a huge part of the game.

**GoliothOnline**

It is definitely prominent within 40k. However, that being said, can definitely mitigate the amount of skill you NEED by playing easy army lists like Serpent Spam.

To which you need to ask yourself, "Does skill really matter, when the wallet beats skill?"

**Soteks Prophet**

No, list and raw codex power account for much much more than skill

**TheCustomLime**

You know how amongst the Infinity community they'll commonly tell you "It's not about what you play, it's how you play"? It's the reverse with 40k. Obviously you need to know what you are doing but an intermediate player with a top tier list has a good chance of beating an expert player with a crappy list.

**Matthew**

Well, I think it depends on skill. Sure, someone who brings 2 Imperial Knights to a game, while everyone else have, say, Land Speeders will probably win.

**Kangodo**

Verviedi wrote:
At my FLGS, when people who are new come in, the manager usually shows off a model that is not competitively viable such as a Morkanaught, and explains that the "Internet hates this model, and they call it useless and terrible, but since the game is tactical, if you know how to use it, it's one of the best units."

This brought up a question. Is this true? Is it actually possible to compensate for crappiness by using a model with skill?

The manager wants to sell stuff, so guess what his motives are

"The internet" are a lot of people and units get assessed based on the assumption that you play it perfectly.
And guess what: They tested, they calculated and they decided it's not good.

Other important things to remember are:
-Your meta can always vary: The discussions here are usually about tournaments and competitive games.
My lists would get trashed on this forum because of the lack of anti-air.
But my groups and friends hardly play flyers and so I don't need anti-air.
I also play 'bad' Necron-lists, they still win because the other people make worse lists and/or they are worse tactical players.
-Having a lucky streak with a model doesn't mean it is good; having 20 times Gets Hot! doesn't mean Plasmaguns are bad and personal experience doesn't mean it has to be like that for everyone.
-It's not all be about winning! It's always fun to win, but how far would you go for it? Would you spam Imperial Knights? Would you drop the army and take Eldar?

All I can really say is this: Don't bring a Morkanaught to a Tournament.
But if you think it might do well against your friends and you enjoy the model, why not?

As to the skill-question.
A below-average player with a good army will probably do the same as a good player with a below-average army.
And skill doesn't make a unit better, it just means that you beat your opponent despite playing that crappy unit. You would have done even better with a better unit.

**jy2**

1/3 (33%) = list

1/3 (33%) = skill

1/3 (34%) = dice/luck

That is my formula for success in 40K. If any one of the above factors go up, the others must come down.

So for example, let's say you are really skilled (50% skill). Then you can still win despite a below-average list (25%) and below-average luck (25%).

If you run a highly optimized list (say, 45% list), then you can still do well with it despite being a less skilled player (20% skill).

Now if both players are running highly optimized lists (say, 45% lists each), but player 1 (skill = 33%) is more highly skilled than player 2 (skill = 25%), then the combination of player 1 + excellent list (33+45 = 78%) is more likely to beat that of player 2 + excellent list (25+45 = 70%).

**Big Blind Bill**

There is skill, but the balance in 40k is on several different tiers depending on what army, and what units, the players are using.

If I run a competitive SM bike/ Necron/ Eldar/ Daemons army, against another SM bike/ Necron/ Eldar/ Daemons army, then skill is going to be the most important aspect, as the armies are relatively well matched.

If however I am running a Serpent spam eldar list against an Ork green horde list, then skill is of less importance, as the list creation has already heavily skewed the outcome of the game. The ork player will need a lot of skill/luck to get across the board and win, whereas the Eldar player is on easy mode.

If I was going to put a number on it like jy2, then I would agree with his numbers with regards to competitive play (which most of his games/lists/battle reports I have seen seem to be).

However, if I was looking at 40k with regards to playing a random guy at the FLGS, then I would say list choice is well over half of the game. If I had to put a number on it, maybe 66%.
There are so many powerhouse builds/formations/combinations out there today that if you do not build or use one, and the other guy does, then the game will not be in your favour from the start, even before skill is involved.

**macexor**

Even if list building is WAY more important than skill, skill still matters.
The reason is that all the people at the "top" have their lists optimised as much as possible.
What's left is skill and possibly some luck.

Other story is if we're talking about a more casual play and someone brings a Serpent/Riptide/whatever spam and just obliterates everything with pure power.

**BoniFactor**

What exactly are the skills of a 40k player?
Target priority and risk assessment seem obvious. Spatial awareness used to be more of a factor in 6th ed but now that you can pre measure its not as essential to judge space.

Im sure there's more right?

**throwoff**

Clever pre-measuring is a skilful thing!

There is skill in the game, from your deployment to your decisions as to going for objectives or a line break or maybe moving into a superior firing position,

I have played some nasty lists with my fluffy cheeseless IF marines and won due to superior deployment and tactical thinking. Plus of course lucky dice!

**DarkLink**

BoniFactor wrote:
What exactly are the skills of a 40k player?
Target priority and risk assessment seem obvious. Spatial awareness used to be more of a factor in 6th ed but now that you can pre measure its not as essential to judge space.

Im sure there's more right?

Deploying the right things in the right place. Moving the right units in the right direction. Target priority. There's a whole lot of skill based components. I can't tell you how many games I've played where I won, but know for a fact that if I had swapped armies with my opponent I would have won with their army as well, or how many games I've lost and learned and never lost to that person/army again.

**vipoid**

Skill is a factor, but its importance in the game has been greatly diminished since 5th.

Now, it's much more about your list. In many cases, the game will basically be decided before it has even begun. Hope you like pay-to-win games.

Also, randomness is much more of a factor - with a lot of important events being determined by the roll of a dice, rather than tactics or skill.

GW hasn't completely removed the skill from 40k, but they've given it a damn good try.

**McGibs**

A huge part of skilled 40k play is experience and knowledge of units, weapons, and rules. Knowing how something behaves best, how to exploit weaknesses, and what to expect without being surprised can simply come down to digesting information.
know what all the tools in the box are, both your own, and your opponents.
40k is a huuuuge game and just staying informed is a skill in its own.

**Melevolence**

vipoid wrote:
Skill is a factor, but its importance in the game has been greatly diminished since 5th.

Now, it's much more about your list. In many cases, the game will basically be decided before it has even begun. Hope you like pay-to-win games.

Also, randomness is much more of a factor - with a lot of important events being determined by the roll of a dice, rather than tactics or skill.

GW hasn't completely removed the skill from 40k, but they've given it a damn good try.

Point 2 is completely, and 100% based on your area or if you intend to play 40k in a 'competitive' environment only. No one in our area 'pays to win' in that manner, as our games are all friendly and very casual. We don't build terrible lists, but we don't play cheese fests. If someone happens to live in an area where power gaming is the only thing played, then they are in a horrid area to play and I'd advise them to never pick up the game, because it would be horridly boring and unfun to face the same power list day after day.

**vipoid**

Melevolence wrote:
Point 2 is completely, and 100% based on your area or if you intend to play 40k in a 'competitive' environment only.

No, it's based on what 40k is right now.

Melevolence wrote:
No one in our area 'pays to win' in that manner, as our games are all friendly and very casual. We don't build terrible lists, but we don't play cheese fests.

Artificial limitations on units is something *you* have added.

House rules do not change what 40k is.

**Melevolence**

vipoid wrote:
Melevolence wrote:
Point 2 is completely, and 100% based on your area or if you intend to play 40k in a 'competitive' environment only.

No, it's based on what 40k is right now.

Melevolence wrote:
No one in our area 'pays to win' in that manner, as our games are all friendly and very casual. We don't build terrible lists, but we don't play cheese fests.

Artificial limitations on units is something *you* have added.

House rules do not change what 40k is.

Pretty sure the rules book makes it a point many times for players to make sure the game is enjoyable for both players. Not a house rule by any means. We are simply following what the instructions say. No house rule made at all. No 'artifical limitations'. Just making sure me and the other players all walk away with no bad taste in our mouths unlike, seemingly, a large majority of the player base.

**changerofways**

Verviedi wrote:
At my FLGS, when people who are new come in, the manager usually shows off a model that is not competitively viable such as a Morkanaught, and explains that the "Internet hates this model, and they call it useless and terrible, but since the game is tactical, if you know how to use it, it's one of the best units."

This brought up a question. Is this true? Is it actually possible to compensate for crappiness by using a model with skill?

Of course! I can't believe this question needs to be asked!

**Poly Ranger**

List writing IS part of the skill. There are 3 types of skill that interlink with each other.
1. List building. Picking competetive units with good synergy with the rest of the list which benefit both your and your armies playstyle.
2. Strategy. The overall plan of battle, which obviously differs somewhat depending on the opponents list. Which units support one another, whether you plan to push your knights and vindis forward to take fire off your advancing DC and SG for example. Whether you are depending on an alpha strike with additional mobile units for mop up etc.
3. Tactics. Target priorities, shielding units, blocking charges, rhino walls etc. Moments of oppertunity based on how the battle and objectives are unfolding.
All 3 merge into one another at various points.

List building IS part of the skill.

**Waaagh 18**

How much of the game is based on who goes first? I'd like to say 5-10% of the game can be determined by who goes first in different situations. When I have played drop pod lists, I have found that turn 1, I can lose a giant chunk of my army with no retribution and it makes going first seem important. When I play imperial guard gunline, going first really helped me get my Ork Warbikers into position for a next turn charge and gave him only 1 round of tank fire. How important is going first, and what percent of the luck allotment would it represent? (8 percent out of the 33 percent suggested by jy2?, is 8 percent of the game down to one dice roll? I'd never thought of it like that before...)

**sudojoe**

vipoid wrote:
Skill is a factor, but its importance in the game has been greatly diminished since 5th.

Now, it's much more about your list. In many cases, the game will basically be decided before it has even begun. Hope you like pay-to-win games.

Also, randomness is much more of a factor - with a lot of important events being determined by the roll of a dice, rather than tactics or skill.

GW hasn't completely removed the skill from 40k, but they've given it a damn good try.

While this thread is all about opinions, I don't share this one (though I agree with mostly what others have said so far)

I've done plenty of games where I trade lists with my opponent and I can beat my own list that just crushed theirs. It gives my opponents who may not have the same wallet size as you may put it, a good chance at kicking my butt as well as forces them to learn exactly what it is that they have built, the strengths and weakness of both.

It's a great teaching/learning tool and makes it way more cerebrally challenging. Heck giving my locations of play, we proxy a heck of alot. Empty flight stands for storm ravens? no problem. Blank bases with pennies on them for bikes? Done that too. shoe boxes for bunkers? Last week.

Pre-measuring is actually in my opinion, more than just a way to reduce skill. It's actually invented a brand new type of skill I'd call "poker face"
I've tried to psych out my opponent by pre-measuring to something to make them think I'm going to go after something while eyeball gauging the distance to another target entirely. It's not always effective but has definately contributed to some tactical mistakes for my opponent.

Statistics is also very much contributory to success. Most folks learn it from experience but it's all based on math. You can either get it from playing time and again or work on your math skills. It is possible to gague how effective something is on paper. It gives you better ideas of how to build the list, what weapons to include, and how effective your weapons will be given specific factors like cover and positioning. Since tournaments often have someone taking strange wildcard units like *cough* transcendent c'tan, you often have little experience with these things but if you can do the math in your head, you can still gauge how effective some tactics will be before you move your guys around and the cascade of events that will follow if something happens - basically multivariate analysis.

Also leads to some great discussions and math-hammer discussions such as:

My buddy fielded 20 DC against me the other day and it was pretty effective at chewing up just about anything. Wiped out easily their points worth of stuff.

However, next time I know better and the DC will be prime target for all the dakka. Though it'd take something along the order of 100 bolter shots to have 58% of killing at least 5 of them. FNP on top of amor save is sooo good.
78% to hit, 58% to wound but 89% chance to save with 3+/5+ FNP

This means it will force me to go back to alot of plasma/grav.

For the example above -

A set of 5 bikes with 4 grav guns generates 12 grav shots at 18' and you have just 38% chance to kill 5 DC. 61% to kill 4 DC. With the bolters, you have just 21% to kill 1 more DC so for sake of argument, you are getting 5 killed to shooting, still leaves 5 of the 10 to get into it with the capt smashface.

Bolt pistols returns by the DC have 17.87% of killing 1 bike if hitting on the 3+ armor guys but not much chance of taking a wound off the 2+ armor captain if he's tanking. 60% chance for 1 DC to die to overwatch from all the grav.

Assuming the DC has 2 pf surviving, 3 gets to swing first at I5, str 5 and 5 attacks each - you have 43.91% to kill at least one bike and 1.75% chance to kill 3.

The 4 bikes swing back (assuming you killed one) - 20% to kill one DC and 2% to kill 2 of them.

Then the 2 power fists swing with the bike captain.
DC have 52% chance to cause 5 wounds and 25% to chance to cause 6 wounds on the bikes but if they have storm shields or the captain tanks them - means 46.41% to cause 2 wounds and 18% to cause 3 wounds.

Smashface then returns with his hammer and has 76% to cause 2 wounds and 40% to cause 3 wounds. which would nearly wipe out the DC probably. (assuming astrorath declined the challenge and factored in the rerolls to wound already)

Now this is considering the DC gets shot up (face it they will be prime targets) before the charge and at 10 man strength.

TLDR - 6 bikes (shield eternal cm+command squad on bikes with apocthecary and 4 grav guns) vs 10 DC+astorath with bikes getting to shoot first, and the DC getting the charge off will likely get stuck in combat for 1 round and end with astorath and DC dying to the CM on the space marine turn taking out at least 1-2 bikes of the command squad and roughly 2-3 wounds from the CM based on how you allocated it.

Alternatively, you can probably wipe the command squad with all the fists/surviving DC and just have astorath fight the challenge and actually do slightly better. He has something like 14% chance to do 1 wound and if he declines the challenge, the depleted DC really doesn't stand much of a chance otherwise and he'll just die next turn anyway if he doesn't fail ldr that round. The captain has 60% chance to do 1 wound to astorath to insta kill him in that one round). Might as well get rid of all the grav guns and the FNP anyway to kill the CM next turn. Having astrorath dying would mean the fearless DC survive and will at least tie up the command team in combat through the SM player's turn to deny 1 turn of shooting.

The bikes come in at 440 points
The 10 DC + astrorath + 2 PF + jumpacks = 445

Drop astorath and it comes in much better at 280 (and frankly the math shows that getting shot up really reduces astorath's effect as power fists already would wound pretty often at 83%. With rerolls to wound, puts you at 97% to wound with the fists.

Throw astorath into DC of 15 and I think then it'd really be worth his points. (did they make a mistake on this thing? My digital copy says 5 base DC + up to 10 more for 15 max? I always used to remember them coming in at 20 marines somehow)

Incidentially, why do I see bike captains with hammers? is 5 points worth the chance to cause concussive? Why not just go power fist also?

**BrianDavion**

Someone mentioned synergy is list building, IMHO this is one of the big things. some armies REALLY need a synergy to work right. and finding out that synergy and taking the right units for it, is important

**Carnage43**

BoniFactor wrote:
What exactly are the skills of a 40k player?
Target priority and risk assessment seem obvious. Spatial awareness used to be more of a factor in 6th ed but now that you can pre measure its not as essential to judge space.

Im sure there's more right?

Knowledge is a big one. If you know every special rule of your opponent's army it stops you from being "surprised".

The rate and volume of new rules is really making it hard to keep up these days though. When it was only 3-4 codexes a year I could spend months pouring over a book to memorize every little detail and quirk. Now, with a new codex/supplement/dataslate coming our literally every week it's really become a chore.

**Nyghoma**

I haven't lost a single game since 3rd edition. I've swept all the tournaments in NYC for 2 years straight for 40k, fantasy, and Mordheim until I got bored with the game in 5th edition and took a hike. Came back 7th edition and still haven't lost a game.

I never use fotm or cookie cutter lists. Never used a list that wasn't my own for that matter. Every list I've come up with was unorthodox and irregular.

It sounds like a load of crap, yeah I know. I get that a lot. But I can promise the OP, luck never had anything to do with it. If the planets are out of alignment and I'm on a small number tear with the ivories, the worse I've done was a close match, but still squeaked it out.

**jy2**

Nyghoma wrote:
I haven't lost a single game since 3rd edition. I've swept all the tournaments in NYC for 2 years straight for 40k, fantasy, and Mordheim until I got bored with the game in 5th edition and took a hike. Came back 7th edition and still haven't lost a game.

I never use fotm or cookie cutter lists. Never used a list that wasn't my own for that matter. Every list I've come up with was unorthodox and irregular.

It sounds like a load of crap, yeah I know. I get that a lot. But I can promise the OP, luck never had anything to do with it. If the planets are out of alignment and I'm on a small number tear with the ivories, the worse I've done was a close match, but still squeaked it out.

Have you ever played in the larger tournaments, like Nova or Adepticon or some of the larger GT's? If so, how did you do?

**Nyghoma**

Honestly, no. Just the NY tri-state area. Never saw the point of spending more money on travel and board than what the potential winnings were. Most of the time it's a fraction of costs incurred. I know some folks do it for the comradity, but what's the point in making 40k friends that live vast distances? That's at least my mindset. Did the pro tour scene with MtG years ago and it wasn't practical, especially when you're running a business.

But on that note, I'm considering doing all the big tournaments this year as long as they are within a 12 hr drive. Reading these forums have motivated me to get more involved.

**techsoldaten**

Nyghoma wrote:
I haven't lost a single game since 3rd edition. I've swept all the tournaments in NYC for 2 years straight for 40k, fantasy, and Mordheim until I got bored with the game in 5th edition and took a hike. Came back 7th edition and still haven't lost a game.

I never use fotm or cookie cutter lists. Never used a list that wasn't my own for that matter. Every list I've come up with was unorthodox and irregular.

It sounds like a load of crap, yeah I know. I get that a lot. But I can promise the OP, luck never had anything to do with it. If the planets are out of alignment and I'm on a small number tear with the ivories, the worse I've done was a close match, but still squeaked it out.

I don't think that sounds like a load of crap. Unorthodox strategies are a common way to win in 40k.

Someone earlier said they think list strength, luck and skill all count for about 33% of each win. I believe that in general, and that some people have different thresholds for each.

That said, try experimenting with bad lists sometimes, it's an opportunity to learn.