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.

 Elbows wrote:
Gotta say I disagree with Xenomancer's enthusiasm.

Sure, it's a dice based game, but the player is making the decisions which determine how many dice are rolled, and against what. I'd argue though with a game like Warhammer 40K, it's probably 60-70% list and 30-40% skill. If we take it to a more absurd level, imagine a player whose read the rulebook, comprehends the rules of the game and is playing his first game against someone who's played 40K for 10 years, and the current edition for 8-9 months. The outcome is extremely likely to be in the veteran player's favour if he's a good player. The experience and general "skill" level will be his advantage.

He could be let down by abysmal dice rolling, sure, but the decisions of how and where to employ those dice (for lack of a better term) still matter. A new player, unguided might end up shooting Krak missiles at a group of gretchin, etc. It's a somewhat absurd example, but skill does matter.

On the flip side, if both players are equally good at list making, and equally strong at playing the game, then the dice results will have a larger impact on the game result.

Bingo. Target priority, mobilization, knowing when to attack and when to pull back, theres still a lot that goes into it. Yes, tourney armies are based on "Buckets o' dice" to win (see: Mark of Slanesh Cultists), and dice can swing a game. But good list building, and proper play should mitigate dice rolls so its not swinging the game dramatically one way or another.

 Elbows wrote:
Gotta say I disagree with Xenomancer's enthusiasm.

Sure, it's a dice based game, but the player is making the decisions which determine how many dice are rolled, and against what. I'd argue though with a game like Warhammer 40K, it's probably 60-70% list and 30-40% skill. If we take it to a more absurd level, imagine a player whose read the rulebook, comprehends the rules of the game and is playing his first game against someone who's played 40K for 10 years, and the current edition for 8-9 months. The outcome is extremely likely to be in the veteran player's favour if he's a good player. The experience and general "skill" level will be his advantage.

He could be let down by abysmal dice rolling, sure, but the decisions of how and where to employ those dice (for lack of a better term) still matter. A new player, unguided might end up shooting Krak missiles at a group of gretchin, etc. It's a somewhat absurd example, but skill does matter.

On the flip side, if both players are equally good at list making, and equally strong at playing the game, then the dice results will have a larger impact on the game result.

While true having equally good lists and equally strong players is very hard. It also assumes neither player makes a mistake in game, misreads a situation etc. I would argue that when lists are close the game comes down a bit to dice, and a lot to whomever makes the biggest mistake/whose opponent catches that mistake. Occasionally that mistake is a failed dice roll, but more often it is a target priority error, or an error of positioning.

DontEatRawHagis wrote:
I was listening to a few podcasts going over the top lists and heard the same names being repeated from previous episodes. Not just the armies, but also the players. Now I understand that these people have chosen these armies because they believe they are likely to win with them. But what if these tournament players had to play different, lower tier armies? How would the top tournaments look?
Would we see Ynari, Chaos Soup, Imperial Soup, and Tyranid Flyrant spam replaced with other broken builds for other armies? Would having so many high level players playing lower tier armies still make it as high in the brackets?

I hate to say this kind of thinking is "interesting" but a fallacy: People who play competitively tend to not choose a "handicap" unless the rules require something like that.
Part of the interesting mental exercise is to play to win.
It does not mean being a competitive overbearing jerk: you just pick what gives advantage where possible.
Part of that is decreasing variation in a "chance" mechanics game: get re-rolls where possible, 2+ on a D6 is ideal, army list focus is important since that has no randomization... etc.

I am sure those same people if forced could "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear": they would do far better than most people who would field these less than optimal lists.
I highly doubt the army list defines the skill of the player, they have given strong thought on methods that work and gear their armies to leverage their preferred strategies and tactics.

The problem is that with the meta of 40k and the huge reliance on variation, it will allow a relative newbie to defeat an experienced player which would be unheard of in something like chess.
I would figure that a "reasonable" player with a more optimal list could beat the "better" player handicapped with a lower tier list.
Not saying that the better player could not squeeze every last advantage they could out of those lists.

I have seen "masters" in a game set extra rules for themselves (handicap) when playing against less experienced players to improve their game and have mercy on the other player.
It is is a whole different matter for that to happen in a competitive setting: it just is not done.

Give a man two vanguard detachments of nine crisis suits armed with two missile pods and a multi tracker each and darkstrider and a commander with only the Ongar gauntlet as hq (about 2000 points) and if he wins against a good list...

Edited by RiTides

They'd lose horribly because tournaments are the least competitive games. They're generally a matter of rock paper scissor of cheesy netlist. For the most part tourney level play might as well just compare lists based on matchup and declare a winner without even rolling dice.

Danny slag wrote:
They'd lose horribly because tournaments are the least competitive games. They're generally a matter of rock paper scissor of cheesy netlist. For the most part tourney level play might as well just compare lists based on matchup and declare a winner without even rolling dice.

Is there more skill when using less powerful armies?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
They'd lose horribly because tournaments are the least competitive games. They're generally a matter of rock paper scissor of cheesy netlist. For the most part tourney level play might as well just compare lists based on matchup and declare a winner without even rolling dice.

Is there more skill when using less powerful armies?

I know his comment was written in a more derisive context, but he does have a point. The best way to win is to avoid competitive matchups when you can. If you can beat your opponent in the army selection or listbuilding phase, then you've already eliminated the hardest part of any competitive environment, the opposing player.

Now, when it comes to comparing degrees of skill and the use of weaker armies, that's a bit of a tough nut to crack. Large disparities in skill levels can allow a player to beat a stronger army, but 40k's skill ceiling is pretty low and the power gaps in many factions can get quite big, which can make all of this pretty hard to measure, especially as you reach more competent levels of play where the gaps get smaller and smaller. The biggest problem here as far as measurements of skill goes is that better armies often come loaded with a wider array of tools to work with. Armies with more options have more tools to play with and show off with, allowing the player to set up and work through a wider breadth of situations. On the other hand, a lot of weaker factions end up being one trick ponies. With few viable tools, their playbook ends up being very small, leading to and extremely low skill ceiling where few concepts are able to be explored.

It makes little sense to take-up a relatively "weaker" list to play.
Part of getting good is practice with your chosen list.
Why spend any time on a list you would not typically use even if it would be a "challenge"?

I would be interested why the OP would care if the higher tier players would play weaker armies, might as well propose a points reduction like the handicap calculation used in golf.

 Talizvar wrote:
It makes little sense to take-up a relatively "weaker" list to play.
Part of getting good is practice with your chosen list.
Why spend any time on a list you would not typically use even if it would be a "challenge"?

I would be interested why the OP would care if the higher tier players would play weaker armies, might as well propose a points reduction like the handicap calculation used in golf.

The OP is asking how much of "top tier" 40K comes down to list building, and how much of a factor the celebrity players' supposed skill during game plays into their success.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
It makes little sense to take-up a relatively "weaker" list to play.
Part of getting good is practice with your chosen list.
Why spend any time on a list you would not typically use even if it would be a "challenge"?

I would be interested why the OP would care if the higher tier players would play weaker armies, might as well propose a points reduction like the handicap calculation used in golf.

The OP is asking how much of "top tier" 40K comes down to list building, and how much of a factor the celebrity players' supposed skill during game plays into their success.

And let's face it, straight 40k gets boring after a while. Challenging yourself is worth it, I suspect all tournament players do so.

It does take a lot of practice to get good with a single army, but I don't think that means every other army is a blank. You are overcoming other factions by practicing, I can't imagine a top tournament player would not notice whatever strategies are being thrown against them.

I've played games where my opponent and I swapped armies. It's like playing a rough sketch of yourself, you feel a little surprised when you see what other people pick up on. While I'm certainly never going to be a good Eldar / Tyrannid / Tau player, I've faced them enough to know what to do with the units.

I suspect a top tournament player would be a little more sensitive than I am and be able to swing a better result. That's not going to translate into tournament wins with a weak Codex, but it would give them a chance to show off their competitive edge.