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.

40K is not SC2 and the "skill" required to play it is completely different, and the same one required to play similar games like warmachine.

Tabletop miniature games are convoluted games of chess, where you need to plan your moves and predict the enemy moves. This is easier than in chess, because the amount of "good moves" is limited, but then you need to balance it with a second factor, which is percentages. 40K is a game where luck has a say, but that actually means that skill matters more, not less.

Bridge is a worlwide competitive game with a huge following and is an olympic sport, yet if one were to look at the rules without being an expert it would just say "This is crap! It is all based on luck!". The "skill" is in being able to choose the correct path in the game which gains you the higher chances of winning.

40K and all tabletop games are the same. There are dice rolls? Then you need to find best way to win through them, which means not only choosing the best targets for your models, but also planning your games with layered B and C plans if something goes wrong. You need to maximize your chances.

In the end to play 40K at the top levels, what is required is being a bit of a chess player and a bit of a bridge player (by the way, two of the most skill based games in the world).

Having a good list is a requirement to partecipate, not part of the "skill".

Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.

Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.

Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.

No ones refuting that. 40k isn't in perfect balance and never will be. But hey they're trying, we're posting in the thread about their new, regular FAQ releases to address balance aren't we?

I know 8th edition isn't everyones cup of tea (don't know why exactly coming from 7th), but one thing I can say that no one can deny is that GW are putting out the best attempt at a balanced, living ruleset that they have ever done, since I started in 3rd edition anyway. Before the Knight codex came out, top level tournament results were as diverse in army selection as they have ever been. Yeah NOVA was an obvious sore thumb, but in a few days to a few weeks we will have an official rules release which should help to remedy the obvious imbalance that was so heavily represented there.

Has everyone already forgotten just a short while ago last edition, where blatantly ridiculous stuff like the 7th ed. Wraithknight, Pink Horrors or the Battle Company gets released and we have to live with it for 18-24 months until a new ruleset comes out? Now you're worried about having to wait an extra couple of weeks? If at all? Doesn't make sense to me.

Spoletta wrote:
40K is not SC2 and the "skill" required to play it is completely different, and the same one required to play similar games like warmachine.

Tabletop miniature games are convoluted games of chess, where you need to plan your moves and predict the enemy moves. This is easier than in chess, because the amount of "good moves" is limited, but then you need to balance it with a second factor, which is percentages. 40K is a game where luck has a say, but that actually means that skill matters more, not less.

Bridge is a worlwide competitive game with a huge following and is an olympic sport, yet if one were to look at the rules without being an expert it would just say "This is crap! It is all based on luck!". The "skill" is in being able to choose the correct path in the game which gains you the higher chances of winning.

40K and all tabletop games are the same. There are dice rolls? Then you need to find best way to win through them, which means not only choosing the best targets for your models, but also planning your games with layered B and C plans if something goes wrong. You need to maximize your chances.

In the end to play 40K at the top levels, what is required is being a bit of a chess player and a bit of a bridge player (by the way, two of the most skill based games in the world).

Having a good list is a requirement to partecipate, not part of the "skill".

Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

I agree with the general argument, but keep in mind that statistics only serve to make the "good" and "bad" moves less obvious. For most situations, there is a clear path of action, no matter what the dice show. If you have a knight sitting with one wound left, you are going to take your commissar's bolt pistol and try to shoot it, even though the chance is next to nothing. If there are some guardsmen nearby and the knight is happily sitting at 10+ life, the obvious thing to do is shoot the guardsmen instead.

In general, skill is used to mitigate the luck faction. You might need three LRBT to blow up a rhino or you might need just two. The skill portion is not unnecessarily over-committing with six LRBT on the rhino, and making sure that if the first LRBT one-shots the rhino, that the other two still have valuable targets to shoot.

There are games which have almost zero player skill involved. For example, in Monopoly there one strategy that is superior to all others (always buy everything possible). If all players are aware of this, the game is decided by the dice, you could determine the outcome of the game without playing it.

Why so much hate on tournament players? If someone don't like it he or she should not play it.

Someone given example that most of match play is "Hey i have 2000pts of Salamanders and looking to play in LGS". And exactly that's why we need balance on COMPETITITVE level to allow such player have nice and fun game.

Imagine now that someone respond with "okay, i will go with my 2k knights" (or Ynnari). Not even maxed list but include Castellan. That player asked more experienced player how he should field Castellan and advised to use Raven/Cawl/3++. People like to win, people looks for advise and in time, their lists become more competitive.

He plays with clearly undercosted Knight that destroy every land rider and stuff from Salamander player without getting a wound. Salamander player is sad, he asks other people how we can deal with Castellan? So competitive player says - he cannot, he need BA capitains or play ynnari. He adds BA det and he is happy with results - finaly can deal with knight! But was running out of CP... what to do? IG battalion! Few weeks later he have BA+Castellan+IG army.

To stop that we need balance on maxed and optimal levels to let players play with different lists and have answers in their own codexes not in netlists. Otherwise games that supposed to be 2000 vs 2000 are in fact 2000 vs 3000 worth armies without balance and fun.

Anyway, GW ignoring such topic as SEPTEMBER FAQ is very sad and hurting sales as many players prefer to wait for it...

Of course if you want nice, fun and balanced game you don't go for "2k, let's play" to begin with as the moment you involve points you have decided to abandon balance. And GW doesn't even try to get close. Their balance is more like shooting with shotgun at 1m target 5km away firing randomly repeatedly so that while pattern is still unbalanced as hell it's different forcing players to buy new models.

Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.

I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.

According to their Facebook, about an hour ago, in an unrelated TSOALR-thread, they said that the FAQ is already written and is being checked, translated and so on. Shouldn't take too long to come out, then.

 Galas wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.

I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.

Going over Nova I see several things that could be changed. Locally we have a 2 limit max on detachments and that makes for a very different meta. The detachments can also not be the same twice which further restricts the meta where I am. Most of the Nova lists have a 3 detachments each.

Using the AoS limit of 20% and going over the Nova lists I see that the Harlequin ally would have been over 435 points over the AoS limit of a 2000 pt game. The one allying simple Craftworlds would have been 190 points over the limit. The Ynnari allies would have been around 400 points over that limit. Even a minimal blood angel captain list of 2 captains(1 with shield, but both with hammers and jump pack) would be 14 points over the limit with the bare minimum of 3 scout squads. Custodes, being naturally expensive, would easily go over the limit. None of those lists would have been legal in the AoS rule.

Going over the lists and their point costs I am even more convinced that the AoS rule of 20% is a very good rule that limits allies a great deal but still offers a little spice to your army.

 Galas wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.

I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.

Well 25% prevents adding castellan ally nevermind tag team of castellan+slamquinus. Even min BA slamquinus battallion would be fairly close to limit. IG ally would take it over so slamquinus would have to come from patrol(-5CP) rather than battallion.

20% would flat out prevent slamquinus battallion. Slamquinus patrol+IG CP battery would be juuuust about legal with even mortar HWS to boot(assuming no point increases to say BA captain...) but again 5 CP less to play with.

Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.

Yeah it would appear that the new FAQ is imminent at this point. The Facebook post by the Warhammer 40k social media team pretty much confirms it. I expect it'll be out in the next couple of days, quite possibly tomorrow.

Reemule wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?

Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?

Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.

Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.

I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?

 gwarsh41 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games. [u]

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?

Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?

Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.

Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.

I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?

I miss read you, after looking at it, you seem to mean that 40K as a game has more options and is bigger than games in esports. I bolded the confusion.

Reemule wrote:
Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.

I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.
Alternatively, I want to experiment with a set CP number for all armies. I understand GWs original intent was to give you the option to swing your list for more power and less cp, or less power and more CP by bringing more troops. It doesn't work too well because of AM and some armies just having better troops (daemons, DE, AM). If every army had say, 10CP base, and then every army had a CP regen ability, the standard +5 to get a CP back, I think we would see a larger diversity of lists. Troops are already very important due to obsec, I don't think they should also be the primary way we get CP in our detachments. I know AM can currently get insane numbers of CP, but I've also heard that they never use them all. So I wonder if it would even hurt the AM players to take a CP hit.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.

I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.

Which armies do you feel it benefits/restricts? Not trying to make a counterpoint or anything, just curious about which army.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.

I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.

Which armies do you feel it benefits/restricts? Not trying to make a counterpoint or anything, just curious about which army.

Going Brigade would be easiest for AM, they are the wrench in the system when it comes to detachment balance in this edition, especially with Brigades, and the 1HQ 2 troops. Though upon second reading, I think I misread the original point as "A brigade that needs 1HQ, 2 troops AND everything else" instead of what is essentially a 10 CP patrol detachment with a bunch of other options. Knights would be in trouble if they were forced to field troops, they are the extreme opposite of AM in any detachment based restrictions. I think that any army that can field units that act independently in the game would also have a leg up on the rest of the armies, such as AM tanks, and Tyranid monsters. 3 heavy support to most armies is just 3 tanks, to others, it's 9, but that goes back to rule of 3 getting awkward.
I suppose at the end of it all, it wouldn't be MORE imbalanced than any other current fix we have now. Beta reserves hurt most armies, while others do fine without it, same with rule of 3. Maybe it's impossible with the current diversity of armies to make a blanket fix that wouldn't hurt one army and leave one happier. One one hand we have a armies that can easily bring any detachment for very few points, on the other we have armies restricted to a single type of detachment. In between we have a diverse selection of armies that have obvious strengths in different slots, where elites outshine fast attack by a large margin, or heavy supports are the spammed options. I do like your idea of set CP for everyone though. I think CP being tied to list building is a restraint that leads to exploitation, and restricted lists, the same for CP regen traits/relics.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
. I know AM can currently get insane numbers of CP, but I've also heard that they never use them all. So I wonder if it would even hurt the AM players to take a CP hit.

Pre cp change i rarely ran out of cp. With cp change it's just silly how much i have left unless i forget that warlord trait and use others and have no headache with cp.only times i benefit from trait is with allies. Less cp to begin with, more cp hungry

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

That will never be true as long as luck determines who goes first and remains so very powerful.

It's a game with dice.

It's possible that I could beat the best player. But the odds are bad on that.

What are the odds I beat the best player? Certainly not above 50%. I'd argue somewhere in the 20% range, but the exact level is very arguable.

I think there are 4 positions being argued here:
-The game's result is at least partially based on luck - meaning I have a non-zero chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.
-The game's result is at least partially based on skill - meaning I have less than a 50% chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.
-The player with the better list has more than a 50% chance of winning.
-The game's result is entirely based on luck - meaning I have a 50/50 chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.

The first three do not conflict. Arguing against the 4th is being mistaken as arguing against the first or third.

The 4th I think can easily be discredited. That's what my post was about. It made a very clear prediction site-unseen that would heavily refute the 4th. Yet that prediction hasn't been falsified at all.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

That will never be true as long as luck determines who goes first and remains so very powerful.

It is true ON AVERAGE.

Think of it more like poker than chess (to use the old analogy).

Good players will lose games to bad players sometimes. But good players win more games than bad players. They make better decisions, that maximise their ability to capitalise on the randomised elements.

Or just look at Chess.

First player is more likely to win.

Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.

Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.

Yuuuuuuup. Very interesting don’t you think?

 Stux wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.

That will never be true as long as luck determines who goes first and remains so very powerful.

It is true ON AVERAGE.

Think of it more like poker than chess (to use the old analogy).

Good players will lose games to bad players sometimes. But good players win more games than bad players. They make better decisions, that maximise their ability to capitalise on the randomised elements.

I absolutely agree that a better player will win on average. I suppose I was thinking of it more from a tournament perspective, where you get one game per opponent - and then dakka uses the outcome of that game to generate hyperbole.

This thread grew several pages since I checked it yesterday, which made me think maybe the FAQ dropped. I was dissappointed

 Galef wrote:
This thread grew several pages since I checked it yesterday, which made me think maybe the FAQ dropped. I was dissappointed

Never underestimate the power of the hatred circle jerk.

GW said only thing left to do is layouting stuff. So I guess the wait is almost over.

Cinderspirit wrote:
GW said only thing left to do is layouting stuff. So I guess the wait is almost over.

Yeah. I would hazard a guess that it will drop either tomorrow or Friday in all honesty. A lot of the chat here is almost completely unrelated though.

Darsath wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
GW said only thing left to do is layouting stuff. So I guess the wait is almost over.

Yeah. I would hazard a guess that it will drop either tomorrow or Friday in all honesty. A lot of the chat here is almost completely unrelated though.

Keep in mind that they said the 'Spring' FAQ was done before Adepticon even started and we still had to wait weeks for 'last minute' changes. While it's not impossible, take the latest comments with a dosage of salt.