If the highest performing tournament players used the lowest tier armies...

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.

**Farseer_V2**

Formosa wrote:

Yep, it comes down to a lot of factors but yes they are getting lucky, lets see a mirror match with that tyrant list eh.

The 2nd place finisher had to go through one of the 4 HT lists and he beat it but lost to the other. There is clearly an element other than luck and list at play here. But why bother continuing to have discourse with someone who is only interested in maintaining their own point of view. Tell you what - you'll be credible the day you post a major win. Until then have fun being a guy who thinks they could even make the podium at a major.

**Xenomancers**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

**Unit1126PLL**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

What about doing so repeatedly, over eighteen-to-twenty-four games in a year, consistently getting 1st place? Do you think that's still luck and no skill?

**Breng77**

Xenomancers wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
NOVA and ITC were actually very far apart as NOVA was not using the ITC rules changes for things like invisibility. Actual changes in the game rules. So certainly LVO isn’t valid because it is was skewed representation of the actual game rules.

At some point events need to be considered based on number of top players and just players at an event and not the list building structure. I’m certainly not saying all events are equal but if 7th ed DE were so bad how did someone win regardless of list building changes?

As to top players running only what the IGHM says is good I’d like to refer you to Sean Nayden and his lists over the last 3 editions. He has either not played the “net list” of the day, or he created said list long before it was the net list of the day.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, it it was using ITC rules/missions No retreat is closer to LVO than NOVA was.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. ITC applied some attempts at balancing, which was different, but otherwise they weren't all that different. I listed the huge deviances No Retreat had previously in this thread which are quite substantial, you're welcome to do the same if you really want to discuss it. I'd note, however, that even today NOVA's primer (or a draft of it) referenced the long history of the two in influencing each other.

SO they were very different in that one used rules and missions that the other did not, but you know other than being different they were not different? Seriously? I mean there were plenty of years where ITC events allowed FW and NOVA did not. The events were not all that similar when you look at winning lists etc because the rules were so different. So how can you say, there was minimal difference?

Way to wrongly paraphrase while also dodging the question. "Plenty of years" is off the mark because we were specifically discussing the tail end of 7th and the WarConvo. The topic was to find an off-meta list that did something similar to that feat. .

At thatt time, the differences between NOVA and ITC were fairly small when it came to what we were discussing: placing well with an off-meta list in a meta environment.

As I said in the previous post, if you want to outline the specific differences between the two at that time and why you think that makes No Retreat closer to something like LVO than NOVA, I'm all for it. I already outlined the No Retreat differences.

Not really wrongly paraphasing you when you say LVO, changed rules for balance, but other than changing those rules there was minimal difference. If right now I changed the rules because I think Hive Tyrants are too strong and say, hive tyrants are Now T7 with a 4+ save, but change nothing else, I'm sure that isn't a big difference to what is good right?

I Tried to find their packets to innumerate the differences but was unable to find packets from 2 years ago. Largely they would have been one using the ITC FAQ and the other not and that the missions (which are meta defining) were significantly different. Which meant one had 2++ re-rollable save, and invisiblity, and the other did not. That is a pretty large meta difference in what armies did well, Deathstars were much better at NOVA than LVO at that time. Further if we are talking about top players and "off meta lists" there have been plenty over the years you are the one that wants to zero in on a specific space of time.

I mean what exactly is your criteria for an off meta list. An Eldar/DE list placed second at the wet coast GT in 7th (more Dark Eldar). Harlequins won the March Madness GT in 2016. Khorne Daemonkin list with 6 Soul Grinders was 10th in NOVA in 2016. I'm not going to pretend that a ton of such lists exist, but if you went through all the 1 loss players at most major events in any year you will find any number of different lists that are not the "current internet wisdom".

It is easier to win with the best tools, which is why the best players use them. But if they were forced to use other tools (as long as they have some list building autonomy) I guarantee they would still do well.

Another factor you have to consider is some of these list you are calling "off meta" aren't bad lists. They certainly aren't low teir armies. Deamonkin was very strong in it's time - it's just - why would you play it when you could just play tzeentch daemons with 2++ rerolls? A low teir army would be something like...space marines without gladius and no deathstar. (essentially automatic lose vs any serious army in 7th ed)

No one wins games with bad army lists, so no matter what you need to assume that a player will be using good tools. So sure Daemonkin was decent, but I did not see a ton of soul grinders on top tables with any normality, so to me that is off meta. If people want off meta to mean, winning with garbage, then yeah that has and will never happen.

**Formosa**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
Formosa wrote:

Yep, it comes down to a lot of factors but yes they are getting lucky, lets see a mirror match with that tyrant list eh.

The 2nd place finisher had to go through one of the 4 HT lists and he beat it but lost to the other. There is clearly an element other than luck and list at play here. But why bother continuing to have discourse with someone who is only interested in maintaining their own point of view. Tell you what - you'll be credible the day you post a major win. Until then have fun being a guy who thinks they could even make the podium at a major.

Typical response "you dont have an opinion that is valid if I havent seen you do something" well tough luck, I have placed top podium and got first place at some of the biggest events in the UK and did for a long time, then got bored with the whole thing around 5th, do I have anything to prove to you, nope, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of how 8th works now when it comes to tournies and seem to think skill matters with a lot of these lists, but to throw your own insult back at you, i will take you seriously when you place well in a UK tourney

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

Or maybe (and I know this is a travesty) they engineer situations where they counter act dice rolls through risk management, good movement, and engineering in game scenarios where they don't need to roll even average to win?

**Formosa**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

What about doing so repeatedly, over eighteen-to-twenty-four games in a year, consistently getting 1st place? Do you think that's still luck and no skill?

And what tourneys, who were the other players, was it casual tourney or full on, did they get lucky and place against crap lists that cant handle the spam, no it must be raw skill and nothing else

**Unit1126PLL**

Formosa wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

What about doing so repeatedly, over eighteen-to-twenty-four games in a year, consistently getting 1st place? Do you think that's still luck and no skill?

And what tourneys, who were the other players, was it casual tourney or full on, did they get lucky and place against crap lists that cant handle the spam, no it must be raw skill and nothing else

The tournies are LVO, NOVA, and Adepticon. The other players were some of the best in the world, and it was in the GT at an event that held other, more casual events, so everyone was absolutely playing their best, and they had to play identical lists to their own, if what you say is true, since the spam lists will all float to the top. You can't actually win a tournament without playing good lists on the final tables.

EDIT:
I'm not claiming it was "raw skill" or that list building and dice are irrelevant. I'm claiming that there is "some skill" along with good lists.

**Xenomancers**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

What about doing so repeatedly, over eighteen-to-twenty-four games in a year, consistently getting 1st place? Do you think that's still luck and no skill?

First of all - I am not saying they are bad players - they are obviously good players.
Second - there is something fishy about someone going undefeated over the course of a 24 game period. I don't care how good your list is or how good of a player you are. If you are winning 24 games a row in a dice game - you are cheating - it's as simple as that.

Furthmore - what number of players at these tournaments are playing power lists? I feel like - it's less than half. I could be wrong.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

What about doing so repeatedly, over eighteen-to-twenty-four games in a year, consistently getting 1st place? Do you think that's still luck and no skill?

First of all - I am not saying they are bad players - they are obviously good players.
Second - there is something fishy about someone going undefeated over the course of a 24 game period. I don't care how good your list is or how good of a player you are. If you are winning 24 games a row in a dice game - you are cheating - it's as simple as that.

But good players mitigate the impact dice can have on their game.

**Unit1126PLL**

Xenomancers wrote:
Second - there is something fishy about someone going undefeated over the course of a 24 game period. I don't care how good your list is or how good of a player you are. If you are winning 24 games a row in a dice game - you are cheating - it's as simple as that.

I suppose such horrible cheating should come to the attention of the TO, then. I can tag a few of them about the forum, see what they have to say about your assertion that the best players of Warhammer 40k in the world are cheating at their tournaments.

**Formosa**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Second - there is something fishy about someone going undefeated over the course of a 24 game period. I don't care how good your list is or how good of a player you are. If you are winning 24 games a row in a dice game - you are cheating - it's as simple as that.

I suppose such horrible cheating should come to the attention of the TO, then. I can tag a few of them about the forum, see what they have to say about your assertion that the best players of Warhammer 40k in the world are cheating at their tournaments.

Funnily enough it seems that it does go on, the other thread talking about the guy who got DQ'd they were saying that the TO dont check every list and cant check every game, cant expect them to though its just not viable.

**Breng77**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Spam vs spam isnt about who is better, its about who wins the spam rolls and whos spam is better, thats not skill, I cant think of a more dull way to play (these days)

So we're back to "how come the same players keep consistently winning despite fighting other very similar spam lists?"

Do you just think they're lucky?

To not lose a game due to dice rolling like crap in a 5 game period is luck. You can't tell me you haven't played a game where you rolled 80% 1s and 2's - I get one of those about every 5 games. So anyone that goes undefeated is flat out lucky their dice didn't feth them - that is true.

Nick Nanavati is 46-2 at adepticon with both losses coming to Matt Root. That is some serious luck on his part that he apparently never rolls poorly, ever except against one player. I mean seriously, I could see that belief if different people were on top of these events every year, but when it is the same people, every single year, at all the majors? Seriously? I admit luck plays some part but that is more in not drawing good players early, not drawing bad matchups, than dice luck. Why? Because one of the main things good players look for in their lists is the mitigation of dice luck. Just go look at Nick's adepticon list. That list performing well has very little to do with luck, most of its power has nothing to do with dice.

**Xenomancers**

You guys are pretty ignorant if you think someone going 46-2 in warhammer 40k isnt cheating. They definately are cheating. The fact that they only lose to each other is another give away. A cheater can still lose to a cheater.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
You guys are pretty ignorant if you think someone going 46-2 in warhammer 40k isnt cheating. They definately are cheating. The fact that they only lose to each other is another give away. A cheater can still lose to a cheater.

Lol this is rich. If I can't do it then the only way it could be done is by cheating!

**Unit1126PLL**

Xenomancers wrote:
You guys are pretty ignorant if you think someone going 46-2 in warhammer 40k isnt cheating. They definately are cheating. The fact that they only lose to each other is another give away. A cheater can still lose to a cheater.

Okay, Xenomancers. Just calm down and no one gets hurt.

**Breng77**

Right so there is luck and cheating, no skill got it....sigh. IT is all a cabal of top level cheaters that is why the same players always rise to the top. That is totally more believable than that some people are better at this game than others....riiiight....

**Farseer_V2**

Breng77 wrote:
Right so there is luck and cheating, no skill got it....sigh. IT is all a cabal of top level cheaters that is why the same players always rise to the top. That is totally more believable than that some people are better at this game than others....riiiight....

Yeah I mean the only way you can be good at 40k is spam list, cheat, and be very lucky.

**Xenomancers**

I am calm - my understanding of statistics gives me poise. It is more or less impossible to consistently win at this game. Guy is winning 96% of his games in a dice game? LOL.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
I am calm - my understanding of statistics gives me poise. It is more or less impossible to consistently win at this game. Guy is winning 96% of his games in a dice game? LOL.

No no, let's be clear it is nearly impossible for you to consistently win at this game because you still think dice are a major factor.

**Unit1126PLL**

Xenomancers wrote:
I am calm - my understanding of statistics gives me poise. It is more or less impossible to consistently win at this game. Guy is winning 96% of his games in a dice game? LOL.

[scientist 1] There must be some other factor, something we didn't consider. [/scientist 1]

[scientist 2] It can't be! We've considered every possible angle - math, some more math, personal experience with no real data, and math! [/scientist 2]

[scientist 3] Unless...[ /scientist 3]

*Actors turn to look behind them at the vivisected Warhammer 40k lying bleeding on the table. It whispers a single word before expiring:*

"skill"

**meleti**

Xenomancers wrote:
meleti wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

It would almost be impressive if the game wasn't won during list construction which is what this thread is about.

Formosa wrote:

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

**Xenomancers**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Right so there is luck and cheating, no skill got it....sigh. IT is all a cabal of top level cheaters that is why the same players always rise to the top. That is totally more believable than that some people are better at this game than others....riiiight....

Yeah I mean the only way you can be good at 40k is spam list, cheat, and be very lucky.

Well - if you are cheating (loaded dice) you take luck out of the equation. So - spam list/loaded dice yeah - 96% win rate makes sense there. Or maybe he just pays people to lose to him - that is also a possibility. winning 96%? Not really probable there. Especially since this is a game I understand well and play about 2-3 times a week with power lists.

**Unit1126PLL**

There are no words for the amount of human stupidity in this thread...

...there's laughter though...

**Formosa**

meleti wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
meleti wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Top tier players using bottom tier armies, they would lose, 8th lacks the depth for skill to have much effect on the games these days, spamming flyers, reapers or whatever doesn’t take skill.

One of the biggest tournaments of the year, Adepticon, just had two former Adepticon champions play each other in the finals. One of those guys had previously won LVO a little more than a month earlier.

It would almost be impressive if the game wasn't won during list construction which is what this thread is about.

Formosa wrote:

and what was his list? thats right... spam.

Facepalm all you like, spam does not equal skill, any mook could come up with that flyrant list and win games with it, doesnt take much if any skill at all.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Right so there is luck and cheating, no skill got it....sigh. IT is all a cabal of top level cheaters that is why the same players always rise to the top. That is totally more believable than that some people are better at this game than others....riiiight....

Yeah I mean the only way you can be good at 40k is spam list, cheat, and be very lucky.

Well - if you are cheating (loaded dice) you take luck out of the equation. So - spam list/loaded dice yeah - 96% win rate makes sense there. Or maybe he just pays people to lose to him - that is also a possibility. winning 96%? Not really probable there. Especially since this is a game I understand well and play about 2-3 times a week with power lists.

Yeah but you don't actually understand it well and you (by your own admission) play in a tiny pool so you have no clue how good or bad you actually are.

**Xenomancers**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are no words for the amount of human stupidity in this thread...

...there's laughter though...

I'm not taking offense to that because my argument is grounded in statistical probability - which isn't actually stupid. I lose games all the time because my dice fail me - like roll unbelievably bad. This doesn't happen to these guys? It's pretty obvious they are cheating. I've also been practically tabled without having a go before (you can't win that game ether) these aren't really uncommon things. It's just the nature of probability.

**meleti**

Formosa wrote:

Facepalm all you like, spam does not equal skill, any mook could come up with that flyrant list and win games with it, doesnt take much if any skill at all.

I cannot take you or Xenomancer seriously. I tried. All that came out was a

.

**Unit1126PLL**

This forum desperately, desperately, heartachingly needs an eye-roll emote.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are no words for the amount of human stupidity in this thread...

...there's laughter though...

I'm not taking offense to that because my argument is grounded in statistical probability - which isn't actually stupid. I lose games all the time because my dice fail me - like roll unbelievably bad. This doesn't happen to these guys? It's pretty obvious they are cheating. I've also been practically tabled without having a go before (you can't win that game ether) these aren't really uncommon things. It's just the nature of probability.

No they don't lose games because they roll poorly. They're better than you and make sure to mitigate those concerns.