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.

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

Really? We're pulling this strawman out? No, and I bet I could beat a 2 year old at 40k. That doesn't disqualify a game from being unbalanced or broken.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

Really? We're pulling this strawman out? No, and I bet I could beat a 2 year old at 40k. That doesn't disqualify a game from being unbalanced or broken.

i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

Really? We're pulling this strawman out? No, and I bet I could beat a 2 year old at 40k. That doesn't disqualify a game from being unbalanced or broken.

i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

To a point. But there are definitely armies (Tau, SM, Eldar) that fly on autopilot. Case in point, I've fought several Eldar armies that result in Movement Phase, Cast Psychic Powers (Twin linked or reroll saves), Shoot Shuriken Cannons, Assault move back. That doesn't require skill.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

Really? We're pulling this strawman out? No, and I bet I could beat a 2 year old at 40k. That doesn't disqualify a game from being unbalanced or broken.

i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

To a point. But there are definitely armies (Tau, SM, Eldar) that fly on autopilot. Case in point, I've fought several Eldar armies that result in Movement Phase, Cast Psychic Powers (Twin linked or reroll saves), Shoot Shuriken Cannons, Assault move back. That doesn't require skill.

I've seen Eldar armies played without skill that do terribly. They consistently lose battles they should easily win and lose far worse than they should when there's something that approaches fair. Entirely because the opponent doesn't know what's happening.

 CrownAxe wrote:
i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

Ok, but if you stop taking "no skill required" literally and understand that it's a bit of an exaggeration the basic point remains true. 40k is a game with a very low ceiling on player skill, once you've figured out the basics of how to run an overpowered army the game becomes little more than executing the standard strategy over and over again. A completely incompetent player can sabotage themselves sufficiently to lose the game, but a player with even a minimal level of competence at executing the standard strategy is going to crush a weaker army over and over again simply because their rules are better.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Player decision will always have an impact on the game, even if it's just selecting the best target per turn.

If before the start pf the game, when both armies have been deployed, you can call the result of the battle and then run the game only to have the result match the prediction 9 times out of 10, you have a game where player decisions do not matter.

If you were to put child whose nevered played 40k at the helm of the army that supposedly win 9/10 times, do you think the child would still win 9/10 times?

Really? We're pulling this strawman out? No, and I bet I could beat a 2 year old at 40k. That doesn't disqualify a game from being unbalanced or broken.

i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

To a point. But there are definitely armies (Tau, SM, Eldar) that fly on autopilot. Case in point, I've fought several Eldar armies that result in Movement Phase, Cast Psychic Powers (Twin linked or reroll saves), Shoot Shuriken Cannons, Assault move back. That doesn't require skill.

Hate to be that guy, but SM aren't exactly auto pilot. No doubt that they are a lot more forgiving than most armies, but once their shiny new toys are gone, you need to know what you're doing to pull a win. Especially against other top dexes. For example if you're running a non furry, none deathstar CC list with psykers, if your locator beacons get deleted and you get one bad scatter because of it you go from offensive to defensive with a single roll.

I could definitely see how people think grav spam is a point and click thing (for the most part it is, hence why I never run it), but there are two people in.my group who use grav spam as a crutch and I literally can't remember the last time either one of em won a game.

I mean, you make them sound like Tau and Admech (sit back and shoot and let your list do the rest) or Crons which is move forward and shoot, let your list do the rest.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

Ok, but if you stop taking "no skill required" literally and understand that it's a bit of an exaggeration the basic point remains true. 40k is a game with a very low ceiling on player skill, once you've figured out the basics of how to run an overpowered army the game becomes little more than executing the standard strategy over and over again. A completely incompetent player can sabotage themselves sufficiently to lose the game, but a player with even a minimal level of competence at executing the standard strategy is going to crush a weaker army over and over again simply because their rules are better.

No its not, There is a reason the same top players keep topping GTs consistently

I don't think saying 'I know who will win after deployment' is always that meaningful. Deployment might be the most important part of the game. It's what sets up armies to win or lose.

I think being able to predict a winner before deployment, looking at lists, is a stronger indicator.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

Ok, but if you stop taking "no skill required" literally and understand that it's a bit of an exaggeration the basic point remains true. 40k is a game with a very low ceiling on player skill, once you've figured out the basics of how to run an overpowered army the game becomes little more than executing the standard strategy over and over again. A completely incompetent player can sabotage themselves sufficiently to lose the game, but a player with even a minimal level of competence at executing the standard strategy is going to crush a weaker army over and over again simply because their rules are better.

No its not, There is a reason the same top players keep topping GTs consistently

And I'm sure that that's got nothing to do with their gimmicky lists using the same armies over and over. I have 100% faith that they could win just as well with any other army.

 Selym wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
i never said the game wasn't unbalanced (it is very unbalanced). My point is that 40k does require skill.

Unbalanced =/= no skill required.

Ok, but if you stop taking "no skill required" literally and understand that it's a bit of an exaggeration the basic point remains true. 40k is a game with a very low ceiling on player skill, once you've figured out the basics of how to run an overpowered army the game becomes little more than executing the standard strategy over and over again. A completely incompetent player can sabotage themselves sufficiently to lose the game, but a player with even a minimal level of competence at executing the standard strategy is going to crush a weaker army over and over again simply because their rules are better.

No its not, There is a reason the same top players keep topping GTs consistently

And I'm sure that that's got nothing to do with their gimmicky lists using the same armies over and over. I have 100% faith that they could win just as well with any other army.

I have no idea what you are saying here

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And I'm sure that that's got nothing to do with their gimmicky lists using the same armies over and over. I have 100% faith that they could win just as well with any other army.

I have no idea what you are saying here

They're saying a top-end player could win a tournament with a bottom-tier army just as well as they could with a top-tier army.

Except I was being sarcastic. The top player's lists are hardly what you'd call fluffy. I mean, fair enough, go all out on tournaments, but I have yet to see any evidence that skill is anything more than an extremely minor factor to winning in 40k.

 Selym wrote:
Except I was being sarcastic. The top player's lists are hardly what you'd call fluffy. I mean, fair enough, go all out on tournaments, but I have yet to see any evidence that skill is anything more than an extremely minor factor to winning in 40k.

"But gravturions with a libby conclave in droppods are completely fluffy"

"But my chapter specialises in the divination power and has a stockpile of HH grav technology! How can you tell me not to play my army the fluffy way?"

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And I'm sure that that's got nothing to do with their gimmicky lists using the same armies over and over. I have 100% faith that they could win just as well with any other army.

I have no idea what you are saying here

They're saying a top-end player could win a tournament with a bottom-tier army just as well as they could with a top-tier army.

Due to the strong leaning on random dice rolling in the mechanics, the chances are substantially less that a skilled player can win with a bottom tier list.
I think I had pointed to some articles earlier that games exactly like 40k allow a relatively new player to beat experienced players unlike say chess where they would typically have zero chance of winning.

Where any experience in 40k counts is figuring out how to remove or mitigate the odds so they have the least chance of ruining your plans.

That can start with a good list.

Then you look for every way to increase your odds to kill models:
Prescience / Precog - aimed shot / sniper - template / Skyfire - Twin linked / re-roll - BS 4+ - High strength / Poison - Low AP (2+!!) - Ignores cover.

Then you look at how to get those models into the ideal range to make use of these attacks as well as physically getting to objectives when needed:
Teleport, Deepstrike, Transports, Move through cover, Bikes, Jetpacks, Jump packs.... actually too many to list here.

Then you look for every way to decrease the odds of your models getting killed:
Cover - Shrouded/invis - High toughness - good armor save - FNP- sheer body-count / swarm / blob

Nevermind trying to have enough dice for the psychic phase to "deny" or push thru those powers.

Being in reserve to some degree affords protection but is assumed they are not getting the job done until they hit the board.

Hmmm... all of the above seem to describe Eldar to a "T".

There is a good reason people practice "Math-hammer".

If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

Story time:

We shall call this case study Hey-Zeus.(HZ)
HZ was a good player coming from a table top gaming background. His first army ended up being Tau. He was tactically sound, had good instincts and I lost to him with my CSM more than I won. He loved spamming Forge World type units and I never had an issue. Then come 7th Edition Codex. His reliance, and inability to create any list with anything other than Stormsurge spam, riptide wing spam, and a Taunar has become rather disconcerting.


Now lets look at his best friend who got him into the hobby. we shall call him EM.

EM is very competitive, and knows how to play his armies well and is probably the most tactically sound player in the community where I am from. He is also on occasion prone to spamming WraithKnights. HZ learned from this behavior so I definitely believe it was nurture vs nature.

I wont my last tourney simply because I didn't have to play either one of those, but this tourney im sure it will end up me V Kenny. We shall see.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

What if your club is genuinely solely comprised of cool dudes?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

What if your club is genuinely solely comprised of cool dudes?

You wait for the inevitable return of.....Timmy!

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

What if your club is genuinely solely comprised of cool dudes?

It's either because Timmy just stormed out after losing a game, or you are DEFINITELY the Timmy. Humans in general are not good people, there's no real way to have a community comprised solely of Good Dudes.

 Selym wrote:
Humans in general are not good people, there's no real way to have a community comprised solely of Good Dudes.

I thought I was negative.

I find most people try to do "the right thing".

Another off-shoot is the "It is all good mon!" player... they get a game in, and anything else is a bonus.

The confusing people are the ones that are "weak" and usually behave well but cannot resist taking every advantage they can for a win.

That is not to be confused with "competitive" players who make no apologies for playing within the rules to the max.: you have been warned.

What gets a bit repulsive is the snively player that feels they are "owed" a win.
Seems to be too much a product of "we are all winners!!!".
I always looked at a good thrashing as something to learn from: I will figure out what went right and wrong and have another go.

I have met a few people that actually do wake up in the morning and actually want to mess with people, to knowingly try to ruin their day.
It was a neat turning point in my life getting that little bit confirmed.

I think my wife nailed this kind of observation rather well:

I can work with anyone that is "good" and "stupid": you can show them the right thing to do and life is good.

I can work with someone who is "evil" and "smart": you can show them what makes sense and life is good.

You cannot do anything with someone who is "evil" and "stupid": pretty much every decision they make is wrong no matter what you do.

 Selym wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

What if your club is genuinely solely comprised of cool dudes?

It's either because Timmy just stormed out after losing a game, or you are DEFINITELY the Timmy. Humans in general are not good people, there's no real way to have a community comprised solely of Good Dudes.

I like to think the main reason there are so few good people is because we can't agree on what's good.

 Selym wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
If you can't spot the Timmy at the table within the first hour, you ARE the Timmy.

What if your club is genuinely solely comprised of cool dudes?

It's either because Timmy just stormed out after losing a game, or you are DEFINITELY the Timmy. Humans in general are not good people, there's no real way to have a community comprised solely of Good Dudes.

Not true, we don't have one at Athena, I try to encourage people not to play that way, I negotiate and if people want to play power house lists, that's fine, not gonna stop them, I'll even play them, but definitely have no timmys. What do you think dave?