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.

Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

 doktor_g wrote:
Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

I'd take you up on your offer....if only I ran orks.

 Nyghoma wrote:
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.

I'd encourage you to attend a major GT. It really is an eye-opener playing against the top players in the US (the GT winners). For those who think that lists are more important than skill, you've got to try playing against a top player with your best list. It does wonders to put things in perspective.

Personally, I go to the larger tournaments for the "friendly" competition. While you will meet some very good players, it is still a lot of fun. Win or lose, I always have a great time, especially after a few shots of liquer.

 doktor_g wrote:
Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

Hey it is possible that he's undefeated, account for the fact that that includes no GT play, and he doesn't specify how many games he's played. I had a non-GT streak of almost 2 dozen straight wins at one point, but I lost in a GT inbetween so I didn't brag much... It's possible if he doesnt play many competitive players though, and only gets out once a month or less... If he has a deal with his wife or something where he is free the first thursday each month, that's only like 7 games. 7-0 in 7th edition is believable against a soft meta. But, without a GT in there it doesnt mean much. Of course, over a stretch of editions it is harder to believe but... make of it what you will.

Back to the OT: I will say winning is 50% list, 40% skill and 10% luck. Skill is a huge part of the game, because so much of 40k comes down to focusing on everything. Forget a rule, a modifier, a run roll, anything and you can just lose the game. Against a competant opponent, there are so many mistakes that can just screw your chances, and it takes skill to avoid mistakes, no matter how OP your list is, or even if it's a bad player with a great list. But, I will take my Nids against serpentspam witha noob anyday, because he will not know he has to move his serpents to get the holofield, and will leave objectives open for me to steal and contest if he makes any mistakes. But, there is that fickle 10% luck than can push anything over the balance if she chooses to. This is why I don't think a several year long win streak is feasible. Sometimes, your dice just tell you no. It happens. A good tactician will put himself in a spot where he has to make any one of four 3+ rolls, because he knows the dice will usually grant him a pass. But sometimes they won't. Sometimes I fail every reserve roll on a 2+. Sometimes I roll snake eyes, even though I made the perfect move. Crap happens.

 doktor_g wrote:
Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

Hahaha, I was counting the minutes on this one.

I know, it's the internet. I'd be skeptical and cynical too. But contrary to the jab, believe it or not, people do exist that qualify in all those categories. Improbable in this community, but nevertheless. Crazy right? (Not that I'm one of those people lol) But that's for another thread....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
To respond to the other folks:

I know the polarization between the local level and nation/country/worldwide. I had my whirl with MtG in both dichotomies. On the local level I did extremely well and even managed to rank #1 in the world for a month in one of the formats. Afterwards, maintained a top 10 position until r/l caught up. World level at the protours, managed to make it to semis a few times before I gave up. Unfortunately on that plane, the game was riddled with card sharks and sleight of hand tricks ( and people smarter than me). The experience was disenfranchising to say the least. Bottom line is I'm not delusional, and put things into perspective.

As for 40k, I've played since 1st/ 2nd edition, right when it transitioned from WD. During 3rd, when I was obsessed, I played at all the stores/ shops(Neutral Ground, Complete Strategist, GW, etc) regularly, pretty much every weekend and a few odd days during the week. Back then, the only big convention I knew of that catered to tabletop games was Origins(et. '92-'02). I may even be wrong on that since I never attended. NYC had a large enough pool of percipiant players. But by no means would I weigh that against a concentration of big leaguers. I guess we'll just have to see.

If we take things like, knowing the rules, battlefield awareness, and deployment into account under skill. I would say the game becomes 45% List, 35% Skill, and 20% Dice.

There are simply some lists that get stomped against another list, of course part of the game is to minimize the randomness so you can have some kind of assurance on certain things.

Playing missions other than purge the alien (and selecting missions at random) adds a tactical dimension to the game - should I go for the objective, or should I charge that unit?

It also incentivises you to have a flexible force.

Skill matters far more than people on this thread are willing to say, but seeing as how it's almost impossible to break down a players skill on a forum, it's almost not worth talking about. Much easier to crunch numbers and math-hammer lists till the cows come home rather than talk about the importance of the movement phase...

I do agree that lists and dice luck have their own share of the "things that matter" pie, but all I need to do is look at my best friend (and guy I play the most) to see that skill is a huge factor. I beat him easily 75% of the time we play, and the losses can usually be attributed to key die rolls that just don't go my way. Yes, that's part of the game, but I honestly can't recall a single game where he surprised me with some clever tactic. Usually, I'm warning him that "hey, it's the 5th turn, you may not want to move that unit away from that objective." He DID beat me the other night with a new Space Wolf / Imperial Guard list he'd built, but after the game I felt like something may have been amiss and sure enough, he brought almost 2500pts to our 2000pt game. It was most likely an honest mistake (he's very new to IG and wasn't good with army builder even before the recent changes), as he's not a known cheater, but it did allow me to feel better about the loss, which would have been a tie if it ended on turn 5. :/

None of that means that I'm a great player, but in our 2 man basement meta, I do seem to get the better of my buddy no matter what. I guess that's the balance for him being a far superior painter...it took me years for my stuff to look anywhere near as good as the FIRST model he ever painted.

I'm not sure if you intended to, but you appear to be saying that while you consider you're the better player of the two of you by a margin, that's essentially redundant in a quarter of the games you play?

Most of what "skill" is involved is related to appropriately build lists, i.e. pick what makes a list strong. On the battlefield, it's mostly about memorization of individual units so that you can appropriately react to your enemy's army.

Kangodo wrote:
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.

This. The whole post is good, but this bit in particular encapsulates the issue IMHO.

There *are* tactics in 40k, but they are pretty obvious to people who have experience/did their homework on the internet, e.g. use anti-tank weapons to take down vehicles, concentrate your fire, use fast units to attack the weaker side and rear armour of vehicles, etc. People on forums like this take this knowledge for granted, so "tactical" discussions really turn into arguments about list building.

It could be argued that you will see more tactical gameplay in non-competitive settings where people don't necessarily have optimal, spamfest lists to hand and have to think cleverly about how to use what they have. And such games make up the majority of 40k games.

Skill exists, that much is undeniable.

How much required or how much it impacts the outcome is totally debatable, though put me firmly in the camp that skill in 40k has less impact on game results than other miniature games, compared to factors like lists or luck.

niv-mizzet wrote:


Skill IS a thing in 40k...
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.
.

Disagree. the list is your tool bag but infinite terrrain, opposing army and opposing general tendencies show me clearly that no way is the listy more important because vey component of any given list can be countered in some fashion. planning for and timing the matchups and dictating the battle field is so much more important than the list trying to do it.

Strategically speaking, I can heavily influence the battle just in the way I as General choose to deploy or not deploy. Many is the enemy who has a powerful list and loses to me because they rely on a list sitting on a table as if it solves something. It doesnt.

So I have to disdagree.

I'd say its 20% Dice+Terrain, 50% skill and 30% list.

Nothing is more important than the general commanding the assets. No general can account for all terrain or bad luck.

After playing Bolt Action lately, I would have to disagree with most on this post. 40k is not mostly skill.

Unit selection and unit power has taken over as the primary ways to win. If it was not, people would not be asking for bans on units, spells, and saves. Codex "power" would not be a hot topic if skill was the highest percent of the cause for winning. Top players are winning GT still because they are playing top armies, usually before the masses are. I guess it takes some skill, but it is list building skill.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
After playing Bolt Action lately, I would have to disagree with most on this post. 40k is not mostly skill.

Unit selection and unit power has taken over as the primary ways to win. If it was not, people would not be asking for bans on units, spells, and saves. Codex "power" would not be a hot topic if skill was the highest percent of the cause for winning. Top players are winning GT still because they are playing top armies, usually before the masses are. I guess it takes some skill, but it is list building skill.

Well here's an analogy you can relate too. Who's better? A servitor with a plasma cannon or Cypher with a bolt pistol? Both have their merits. Sledgehammer or scalpel? Sure the plasma has a higher ceiling, but can be a disappointment in the accuracy department. Cypher, a bit more reliable, but limited to popping beer cans with a bolt pistol.

Giving a child a mortar isn't exactly sound. Same goes for lists. An imitation will trip all over themselves, like bull in China shop. Just because you have a dick, doesn't mean you know how to use it. That's enough clichés to give a gym junkie whiplash!

Anywho, there some people who can drop a list on you for appraisal, that some couldn't make out ass to elbow. They'll start scrambling for a translator while emoting a lampooned characture of themselves. That's the reality. Good list+nescience=low altitude.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
After playing Bolt Action lately, I would have to disagree with most on this post. 40k is not mostly skill.

Unit selection and unit power has taken over as the primary ways to win. If it was not, people would not be asking for bans on units, spells, and saves. Codex "power" would not be a hot topic if skill was the highest percent of the cause for winning. Top players are winning GT still because they are playing top armies, usually before the masses are. I guess it takes some skill, but it is list building skill.

well in bolt action, you also have very similar lists fighting eachother and much less the crazy monsters that fly with tentacled flamethrowers running around and no giant bike riding supersoldier with a sledgehammer to cave in the skull of said tentacled horror.

If you want to replicate that same tactical "skill" feeling in 40k, just play a mirror list. Most bolt action games have very similar pariety on both sides. 40k goes into much crazier combinations of things which actually can still reach pariety if you have the "skill" to do so.

What I'm seeing on this thread seems to be saying -

"skill" at listbuilding is not a skill. - why would this make any sense? Cause you can copy one from someone that has done the homework and research and has the battlefield experience to write said list?

So if that was the case, we might as well invalidate a great deal of homework for students too then since you can obviously look up answers for most textbooks online and just copy that (which as a teacher it's absolutely annoying as heck when you think your students know something and when it comes to test date, they all bomb cause they never learned it in the first place)

So taking the above, if some noob did copy a list from the net, ran it against another noob without doing so, it probably would do well since we all play a statistics game and dice obey statistics for the most part. Alot of the top lists are statistically sound which makes them good lists.

However, taking that same noob that copied a list, and pit him against someone more "skilled" or "experienced" might be a better word, and it's not hard for the vet to see the counters that would work or how to use the units that he has more effectively and can probably still win with good majority of the time.

Also, some places may want to devaluate lists and more for on board tactics, that's totally fine too and it's why highlander formats are springing up alot. There's nothing wrong with either format as far as I'm concerned. It still requires "skill" to make a good highlander format list and to run it well. It's got less redundency but that's fine too as a "skilled" general will be able to use complementary units and tactics / terrain/cover/ board control/ target selection to still get the job done.

At high end tournaments, most redundency is put in to counter the enemy's redundency. You fully commit to a battle expecting a certain portion of your list to die if given some scenario but have factored that into the rest of you list so it can still function to what you want it to do.

Lots of variety in 40k -

hordes
mech
monster mash (sometimes flying)
elite infantry
fast bikes/wolves/spawn
drop lists of all kinds
gunlines
supergiants
air force
highlander (which believe it or not, is not always an auto loss vs spam and makes for some games where you end up "baiting" with some less effective units and then counter with your strengths at the time)

It does take some "skill" to be able to use all your units effectively to counter all of these things. Especially in a GT format where you can't list tailor between matches. Take what you will, do you have the "skill" to beat all of that with what you got?

If you built your own list, I'd say that you have a much better chance to do so. Copied from somewhere? sure you might still pull out a win here or there but I doubt that you'll get to the top tables with that.

 sudojoe wrote:

So taking the above, if some noob did copy a list from the net, ran it against another noob without doing so, it probably would do well since we all play a statistics game and dice obey statistics for the most part. Alot of the top lists are statistically sound which makes them good lists.

However, taking that same noob that copied a list, and pit him against someone more "skilled" or "experienced" might be a better word, and it's not hard for the vet to see the counters that would work or how to use the units that he has more effectively and can probably still win with good majority of the time.

But I would be willing to wager heavily that a noob playing a net power list against a veteran would perform disproportionately well, even if they did ultimately lose - but it would be near impossible to set a base line or establish a method of measuring performance against it.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
After playing Bolt Action lately, I would have to disagree with most on this post. 40k is not mostly skill.

Unit selection and unit power has taken over as the primary ways to win. If it was not, people would not be asking for bans on units, spells, and saves. Codex "power" would not be a hot topic if skill was the highest percent of the cause for winning. Top players are winning GT still because they are playing top armies, usually before the masses are. I guess it takes some skill, but it is list building skill.

Exhalt... wait exhale.....

List building is a huge skill.... but different that the tactics in the movement phase. Mirror lists is the true test.

doktor_g wrote:Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

jy2 wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Faction 74%
Skill 24% (includes list building)
Luck (varies between 1-99%)

Give the most skilled general in the universe orks and you get to choose your faction and list. Game is over before it starts.

@Nyghoma: Your post made me lol. You must be a 40k rain man. Are you also a Navy SEAL / Neurosurgeon / Male Model / Billionaire playboy? NEVER lost a game? Wow. That's just. Wow.

I'd take you up on your offer....if only I ran orks.

 Nyghoma wrote:
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.

I'd encourage you to attend a major GT. It really is an eye-opener playing against the top players in the US (the GT winners). For those who think that lists are more important than skill, you've got to try playing against a top player with your best list. It does wonders to put things in perspective.

Personally, I go to the larger tournaments for the "friendly" competition. While you will meet some very good players, it is still a lot of fun. Win or lose, I always have a great time, especially after a few shots of liquer.

I'll take on this challenge - the same way I took on your first challenge!

Tactics is an important factor in 40k and tactics require thinking, planning ahead, knowing your enemy.

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.

Lol, I laughed.
Bring all the pyrovores, howling banshees, pathfinders, sisters of battle you want. No amount of tactics will save the unit. (Just kidding [partly] sob players)
The manager is flat wrong. 40k is pretty easy to determine the better unit. And their are better units.Its like taking a war golem instead of a Doctor Boom in Hearthstone. No reason not to run D.B.
Why use your tactical genius to make a bad unit o.k, when you can make a great unit amazing?

People always bring up dice rolls being a factor in skill vs luck and forget that ALL the power builds rely and play on Re-rolls. If you want to fix the game, stop finding ways to remove the Luck part out of it.... That's the only problem I've been having with Re-roll Hammer 40k lately.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
People always bring up dice rolls being a factor in skill vs luck and forget that ALL the power builds rely and play on Re-rolls. If you want to fix the game, stop finding ways to remove the Luck part out of it.... That's the only problem I've been having with Re-roll Hammer 40k lately.

Yes, good players find ways to minimize luck. Re-rolls is one way of doing that.Another is ensuring that rolls are only successes on 6s, by bringing a lot of high toughness units or flying units, or the dreaded invisibility.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
People always bring up dice rolls being a factor in skill vs luck and forget that ALL the power builds rely and play on Re-rolls. If you want to fix the game, stop finding ways to remove the Luck part out of it.... That's the only problem I've been having with Re-roll Hammer 40k lately.

I'm confused as to how making the game more random will in any way "fix" it.

Personally, I think the increased randomness is one of the biggest problems at the moment.


That being said, there are some things that just shouldn't ever be rerollable - most notably invulnerable saves. In a game where many units have easy access to 3++ and even 2++ saves (and virtually nothing in the game can negate invulnerable saves), such saves should never be made rerollable. Note that this also includes quai-rerollable saves - like having an aforementioned 2++ or 3++ save and the ability to reroll 1s.

List building is very important, but that's relatively easy to google up. 40k skill is extremely real as reading battle reports from competitive players will assure you. It's mostly about expertly calculating (or making educated guesses) of probability both in dice rolls and the human behaviour of your opponent.

kodi wrote:
List building is very important, but that's relatively easy to google up. 40k skill is extremely real as reading battle reports from competitive players will assure you. It's mostly about expertly calculating (or making educated guesses) of probability both in dice rolls and the human behaviour of your opponent.

"Expertly calculating" probabilities of independent die rolls is not skill. That's just basic mathematics. Hell, you can calculate those probabilities in under 30 seconds on a calculator.

As for the human behaviour element, that's just knowing enough about the game mechanics to guess what weapons they'll try to use on what. If they have a load of lascannons then they're probably going to shoot at your tank rather than the unit of cultists etc.

Not skill.

"Expertly calculating" probabilities of independent die rolls is not skill. That's just basic mathematics. Hell, you can calculate those probabilities in under 30 seconds on a calculator.

As for the human behaviour element, that's just knowing enough about the game mechanics to guess what weapons they'll try to use on what. If they have a load of lascannons then they're probably going to shoot at your tank rather than the unit of cultists etc.

Not skill.

I'd argue the exact opposite actually. What would skill be other than being able to do math quickly and in your head without a calculator. What is skill other than out learning your enemy (know all the rules and codexes and units and how they work and such)

Heck, even in interviews with chess champions in which all they do is play mirror matches, alot of time it's seeing the pattern or having experience in how pieces move in the first place that makes them have more skill.

On pro-gaming circuits, it's as much about twitch reflexes as it is about knowing the map and the best camp locations and how the flow of the battle will go. Those are all considered skill in my book.

If the only things that are skill based are how fast reflexes are, they still won't compare with memories. You can be sure that guys practice several hundred times before they can beat "The Impossible game" or play guitar heroes "Dragon Force" on extreme difficulty. It's not fast reflexes that are winning it for them but memories and practice (muscle memories).

Some of this then devolves into what people are considering "skill" now for 40k.

Is it skillful to be able to roll specific numbers when dice rolling? Some would say yes, others would say no as that falls into cheating. I have met folks that regularly go to casinos and can win reliably at rolling dice as they've developed an ability to roll to such an extent that they can win a bit better than 50% of the time. So does that count as skill?

How about that human behavior element? Isn't that how wars are won in real life too? You have to know what your armies can do and the armies / equipment of the enemy and know that they probably know what you know as well. Then you have to somehow use that knowledge to lure your enemies into traps/making mistakes/ be wrongfooted while avoiding the same. It's like chess that way or any other board game of 1v1. Isn't that skill to be able to do that in your head on the fly? *seriously, in tournaments, speed makes a difference too as matches are timed and you may need to go fast and not make mistakes to get to turn 5 sometimes such that you can win*

It's easy to make assumptions of cultists shooting a tank, but it gets fuzzy when you have some tau fire warriors with EMP grenades in cover near a tank as opposed to those nice ap 1 rail rifles in the back on tougher unit but out of cover. Which do you end up prioritizing when you are shooting AP4 at them with your tank? Or do you just run away and forgo shooting? Do you risk the immobilization? Or do you just sacrifice the tank this turn and achieve something else with the rest of your force? Or do you send your whole army after those 2 threats cause you want to really save that tank?

That's what I'd call skill. Being able to do all that in your head and have a great plan on how the rest of the pieces will move and then changing your ideas on the fly as the tactical situation changes but always keeping in mind what the victory conditions are. Any of those answers may be right answers, but do you know what will happen afterwards and can deal with it because you made that decision?

That's skill.

Experience and knowledge do not equal skill. It is easy to conflate them with each other, but they are not the same.

I could have been playing tennis for 20 years, I could understand the rules intimately, I could have a huge repertoire of practiced shots and sequences that have won me many points in the past, it does not necessarily follow that I will ever be good enough to be, or even beat, a player in the top 100.

I don't think you can really put a percentage on how the game is split up because it kinda changes every game. I spose you could say luck, skill, and the list make up 1-99% each.

I think this comedy sketch is a good analogy to trying to organize a game of 40k, especially in 7th edition with unbound and the hundreds of formations available, and also relates to how much skill is involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VcM5sDyg0

Using a pistol of or a sword both require skill, but if you bring a sword to a pistol duel, you are going to have a bad time, whether you are skilled with the sword or not.

This is why playing 40k can require varying levels of skill depending on whether your opponent brought a sword (fluffy lists like deathwing), or a pistol (adamantium lance, waveserpents, etc).

Skill exists arguably within the realm of any game or activity. The real question is whether or not balance exists cross and inter factionally given all the tools at a players disposal. Optimally two balanced (all-comers) lists wielded by players of equal skill should have roughly 50/50 odds against each other. Some games do this better than others.

Random variables within a game system are also important because they directly affect balance. A certain number is acceptable, but too many of them can quickly detract from the 50/50 that should be striven for and make player skill far less relevant.

List design is important in all games as well. It is part of the fun. The issue is when skewed lists topple balanced lists with alarming regularity. Or when balanced lists are next to impossible to create. Skewed lists by their very nature should hard counter some builds, but should have glaring weaknesses that any balanced force should be able to work around.

Games Workshop tend to play fast and loose with their game design. I will not rant about how much I may dislike GW, but I will say that I think the players make this game fun, not the rules.