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.

Nurglitch wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
40k is an incredibly shallow game with the illusion of a lot of skill and complexity. It's not high skill, but it's not entirely dice either. It's a far cry from what I would consider requiring a lot of skill or even deep and complex skill, however, no matter how much the competitive 40k crowd wants to pretend it does.

It's an interesting fissure between the competitive and casual crowds that casual people tend to believe that the dice rolls overwhelm skill, and competitive players believe it doesn't. I mean, Mike organises the premiere 40k competitive event, the NOVA Open, so I would think he has some experience in the matter, and it's definitely not the only event at NOVA - it has narrative events too.

Generally speaking competitive players are more aware of what the dice odds actually are and make their decisions accordingly. They're making plans based on below average results and take moments of good fortune as a freebie rather than something their plans depended on. When you really understand the dice curve and what you should expect out of them, its a lot easier to make meaningful decisions. That said, GW's stuff is far from the most skill intensive games I've played; they're also a lot less random than people think once you get it out of your head that 3's to hit, 3's to wound should succeed "most" of the time.

Nurglitch wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
40k is an incredibly shallow game with the illusion of a lot of skill and complexity. It's not high skill, but it's not entirely dice either. It's a far cry from what I would consider requiring a lot of skill or even deep and complex skill, however, no matter how much the competitive 40k crowd wants to pretend it does.

It's an interesting fissure between the competitive and casual crowds that casual people tend to believe that the dice rolls overwhelm skill, and competitive players believe it doesn't. I mean, Mike organises the premiere 40k competitive event, the NOVA Open, so I would think he has some experience in the matter, and it's definitely not the only event at NOVA - it has narrative events too.

He also has a vested interest in keeping that narrative going, whether it's true or not, although it's not in the same vein as say Frontline Gaming which I basically consider being the GW Ministry of Propaganda.

MVBrandt wrote:


Based on your clarification, I would still disagree. But I am mostly just noting your observation that 40k is not a particularly skillful game. That's ... simply untrue. And no, most games would not come down to swingy dice rolls.

40k is not without skill, but it is a pretty shallow game overall, with few meaningful decisions especially when compared with the complexity inherent in other wargames or games in general. That is not to say it is a 'bad' game, or a game that can't (or shouldn't) be enjoyed.

MVBrandt wrote:

Based on your clarification, I would still disagree. But I am mostly just noting your observation that 40k is not a particularly skillful game. That's ... simply untrue. And no, most games would not come down to swingy dice rolls.

Compared to say, sports Bridge, it is relatively very low on skill scale...

My description of the importance of dice rolls was with all things being equal - identical teams on symmetrical terrain. I think everyone can agree that army composition makes the absolute most difference in success. Is it fair to say that a great player with a very bad list most likely won't beat a bad player with a very good list?

But even removing that, you still aren't left with a particularly fair game because many circumstances have a flat distribution curve, making results towards the extreme ends more common. With balance otherwise being even, these extreme rolls can cluster, determining the winner of the game regardless of skill.

If, and only if, you control for army composition and terrain advantages, AND you control for these dice extremes, then you are left with a game in which skill will be the single most important determining factor in the game. But you'd literally have to remove 99% of the game to do that, so...

Wayniac wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
40k is an incredibly shallow game with the illusion of a lot of skill and complexity. It's not high skill, but it's not entirely dice either. It's a far cry from what I would consider requiring a lot of skill or even deep and complex skill, however, no matter how much the competitive 40k crowd wants to pretend it does.

It's an interesting fissure between the competitive and casual crowds that casual people tend to believe that the dice rolls overwhelm skill, and competitive players believe it doesn't. I mean, Mike organises the premiere 40k competitive event, the NOVA Open, so I would think he has some experience in the matter, and it's definitely not the only event at NOVA - it has narrative events too.

He also has a vested interest in keeping that narrative going, whether it's true or not, although it's not in the same vein as say Frontline Gaming which I basically consider being the GW Ministry of Propaganda.

He really doesn't
He doesn't make money from NOVA and most of NOVA is narrative and non-GW events. It's less a competitive 40k tournament than a gaming convention as I understand it. I don't see how he has a vested interest. Expertise, certainly, but not any reason to publicly state what isn't the truth as he sees it

 Sqorgar wrote:
Is it fair to say that a great player with a very bad list most likely won't beat a bad player with a very good list?

No, it's not really fair to say that. I'm confident in saying Jim Vesal with a Grey Knights list would likely beat a bad player with a Flying Circus Eldar list.

This game in a lot of ways is about knowing the weaknesses of armies, and the strengths of others, and knowing how to exploit that. Flying Eldar for example should take apart a Grey Knights list, but I'm sure a bad player with that list wouldn't understand the danger of deep striking marines with storm bolters, would lose his ground forces, and then would lose because of the "boots on the ground" rule.

A good player with a bad list will beat a bad player with a good list most of the time. Even if the "bad" list is utterly incompetent, a bad player usually leaves massive holes in his strategy a good player could exploit to make up for their worse list.

 Horst wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Is it fair to say that a great player with a very bad list most likely won't beat a bad player with a very good list?

No, it's not really fair to say that. I'm confident in saying Jim Vesal with a Grey Knights list would likely beat a bad player with a Flying Circus Eldar list.

This game in a lot of ways is about knowing the weaknesses of armies, and the strengths of others, and knowing how to exploit that. Flying Eldar for example should take apart a Grey Knights list, but I'm sure a bad player with that list wouldn't understand the danger of deep striking marines with storm bolters, would lose his ground forces, and then would lose because of the "boots on the ground" rule.

A good player with a bad list will beat a bad player with a good list most of the time. Even if the "bad" list is utterly incompetent, a bad player usually leaves massive holes in his strategy a good player could exploit to make up for their worse list.

I agree up to a point. I think people forget how bad some players can be, or have never encountered such a player. New or weak players make terrible decisions a lot of the time and are unfamiliar with a lot of the simple tricks that more experienced players take for granted. I've had some new players surprised at being multi-charged, for example. Such a tactic simply never crossed their minds.

However (and this is the big caveat for 40k, IMO) I think the issue with 40k is that if you replace "bad player" in the example above with "OK player" the scenario changes massively. The lack of depth in 40k means that a lot of the "tactics" employed are simply rote actions you can add to a checklist you work through as your turn progresses. So you don't need much a of a step up from "bad player" before the imbalance in the game and shallowness of the tactics allows a good list to overwhelm a weak one regardless of who's playing the weak list. Basically, the problem is that the step up from bad player to mediocre is a very simple one to take and the only players I've seen who don't make that step up are those who aren't really invested in the game at all.

Many discutants here seem to confuse skill in the game with knowledge about the game. Ability to multicharge, boots on the ground rule, bubblewraps, daisychains those all are elements of knowledge about a game, not skill elements. The skill here is the ability to judge when to perform any of those manouvers. This, as with any intelectual game, boils down to ones ability to predict future game states tree and follow the most advantageous branch. But because every action you can execute in 40K ends with a random roll, you can only predict so much and you have to make backup plans for quite high discrepancy of results. That is why all movement phase decisions and low variance listbuilding choices are so important in 40k skill - those directly affect the ability to predict the future flow of the game and act accordingly. This is also why ITC format is considered better - because you can prepare and rehearse for many game elements before the actual game, cutting down the total volume of the game tree. But there is limit to that and the rest is ruled by dice rolls.

The reason why high tables 40k seem to be highly skill dependent is because whichever of the two skillfull enough for 40k players wins by the luck element, it will be perceived as justly won, and because that luck element perception is focused on singular spectacular (swingy) rolls that you can pinpoint, while in reality the luck element lies within those little „statistical” ones (one more wound here, one less casaulty there). In 40k game of equals dice rule, not minute skill discrepancies between players.

Again, compare that with skill ladder in chess or bridge (the only two officially acknowledged intelectual sports disciplines) and you will see how little actual skill there is in 40k.

But with all that said, there is still enough room for huge knowledge and skill discrepancies between players as a) most players prowess in the game is quite low and sometimes based on myths about the game, b) mileage of most players is very, very low compared to total volume of possible rules/faction interactions (the gotch ya element caused by the vastness of the game), c) self ascribed knowledge and skill level is in many cases way above the actual, so many players do not learn to play better over time but still consider themselves skilled veterans only because they are in the game long enough to know how to exploit balance issues, and d) most people confuse sofa mathhammer skills with actual tabletop experience and then perform poorly in actual tournaments.

I have found good players with bad armies make great games with bad players rocking netlists. The results ive found have been about 50/50

 auticus wrote:
I have found good players with bad armies make great games with bad players rocking netlists. The results ive found have been about 50/50

But if they had equal armies, you'd expect the good player to win the majority of the time - probably close to 100/0, right? So would you say that army composition is the dominant qualifier for success in 40k? In a skill based game, a bad player should never win against a good player.

In an equal match the better player nearly always wins.

The key is finding equal match. You typically have to min max to get an equal force.

I mean there's a point where bringing gak lists and complaining that people have looked up gak for their expensive ass hobby is just kind of ridiculous.

Listbuilding is a part of the game, and knowing your list, it's strengths,weaknesses and to how pilot the list is all part of the game and being a better player.

"A bad player should never win against a good player" when the supposedly good player brings a awful list rings very hollow to me. It feels very self reassuring and a naïve pat on the back.

The desire to create this good/bad player/list dictomony seems pedantic and pointless, as list building is part of being a good player and isn't really something that exists in a vaccum.

WinterLantern wrote:

"A bad player should never win against a good player" when the supposedly good player brings a awful list rings very hollow to me. It feels very self reassuring and a naïve pat on the back.

If it is a skill-based game, then skill should be the primary deciding factor in victory. That is, skill should be able to compensate for moderate handicaps and imbalances. If the difference in lists is what decides victory, it is not a skill based game.

The desire to create this good/bad player/list dictomony seems pedantic and pointless, as list building is part of being a good player and isn't really something that exists in a vaccum.

Minmaxing is hardly rocket science. Most people just choose to listbuild around different criteria - which models they own or want to own, fluffly lists, cheapest lists, lists that are more versatile, lists that are just fun to play. Listbuilding to win is not different than listbuilding based on a budget, it just focuses on a different thing. Instead of minmaxing power, it is minmaxing money.

Basically, the only reason that competitive players make really competitive lists is because only competitive players would enjoy making and playing that sort of list - it isn't because it is a skill or requires any actual talent. It's a matter of priorities, not skill. Most people just don't want to play that way, because... geez, what a horrible waste of time and energy...

I mean, I've been a computer programmer for... geez, almost 30 years now. I've built systems that make 40k look like tinker toys. When you've spent a year writing multiple hundreds of thousands of lines of code, the prospect of picking the 10 best things out of a few dozen similar things and deciding which pew pew to do during your five turns doesn't exactly make me dust off the old thinking cap, know what I mean?

If you're writing hundreds of thousands of lines a code per year, you're either not documenting anything or copy/pasting huge chunks around and creating a ton of duplicate code that is hard to maintain. Probably not something to brag about.

Seriously sqorgar, answer this. If it's so easy, how come so many competitive players are unable to win 100% of the time? I try to optimize my lists... I still don't win GTs all the time. Is it because I'm just too stupid to figure out a supposedly easy game that requires no skill? Or are you just being obtuse and arguing because you don't like competitive play?

 Horst wrote:
If you're writing hundreds of thousands of lines a code per year, you're either not documenting anything or copy/pasting huge chunks around and creating a ton of duplicate code that is hard to maintain. Probably not something to brag about.

It really depends on what you are making, doesn't it?

Seriously sqorgar, answer this. If it's so easy, how come so many competitive players are unable to win 100% of the time?

I'm just going to throw this out there... because 40k is not a skill-based game?

I try to optimize my lists... I still don't win GTs all the time. Is it because I'm just too stupid to figure out a supposedly easy game that requires no skill? Or are you just being obtuse and arguing because you don't like competitive play?

I don't know you or why you don't win GTs all the time. But it seems like there's really only two possibilities. A) 40k is not a game that anybody can win all the time because skill isn't as important as it appears, or B) 40k is a game that requires a lot of skill, which you simply lack. And I guess you are arguing for B?

A third possibility is, I guess, C) that you are making decisions with priorities not laser focused on winning. Like if Eldar are the current best faction and you'd rather put your hand in a blender than play those melon farming, pointy eared, space elf bastards. That's going to hold you back, but screw those egg helmet wearing turd burglars...

 Horst wrote:

Seriously sqorgar, answer this. If it's so easy, how come so many competitive players are unable to win 100% of the time? I try to optimize my lists... I still don't win GTs all the time. Is it because I'm just too stupid to figure out a supposedly easy game that requires no skill? Or are you just being obtuse and arguing because you don't like competitive play?

You confuse one thing here: a game not fully dependent on skill does not mean that it is an easy game. If your goal is to win 99% of times then a game with enough luck element in it is literally the hardest game to achievie this in. Heck, many co-op board games rely on exactly this effect to „be difficult” - that all player agency embedded in a game cannot overcome random element reliably enough for the game to be solved.

And I have answered this question of yours in my post above - 40k game between equally skilled players with equally powerfull armies is resolved by dice luck, not minute skill level differences. Assuming „listbuilding is a skill” perspective, 40k lets you sort out really bad players from mediocre players, mediocre players from good players and good players from top players, but within any of those groups, bad, mediocre, good or top the ranking order is driven purely by dice gods. Nobody is able to achieve a status of undefeated champion of 40K like you can achieve in, say, chess because luck element in 40k cannot be surpassed enough by skill element.

OK... then please explain to me how players like Nick Nanavati can use 3 different armies, and still have reliable results in the top 3 of almost every tournament he goes to? Or how TJ Lannigan can have 5 GT wins with a different army (one Nick hasn't played)?

At these tournaments, everyone is trying to bring the best list they can. I've certainly beaten other players using similar lists to theirs. Why then are some players able to consistently place highly in GT's?

 Horst wrote:
OK... then please explain to me how players like Nick Nanavati can use 3 different armies, and still have reliable results in the top 3 of almost every tournament he goes to? Or how TJ Lannigan can have 5 GT wins with a different army (one Nick hasn't played)?

At these tournaments, everyone is trying to bring the best list they can. I've certainly beaten other players using similar lists to theirs. Why then are some players able to consistently place highly in GT's?

First, you are talking mostly about ITC ranking, a format which makes 40K a whole lot smaller and nearly solvable game. And secondly, as I wrote above, 40K can differentiate between bad, mediocre, good and top players. What it cannot is sort players purely by skill. Because of how tournaments are constructed and how few players are willing to actually devote their time to follow all rules changes and money to top level churn, burn and travel, you'll see only a handfull of names not only rotating at the top places, but even attending all those pointed tournaments. There is no magic in it - in a game of constantly changing rules and meta only the most devoted players can compete at the very top (and to win at that level they also must be capable enough) - the WHOLE ITC ranking, including people with 0 overall score is only about 8000 records long. That is... tiny.

To end my argument about this particular topic: I would say 40K at GT levels requires the same amount of skill as poker (which requires you to be able to keep all deals between shuffles and all odds in your head from game to game, so there is fairly high demand for "brain power" in it, but is still driven hell of a lot by luck. It is only an available choice to withdraw that keeps the skill element in poker more important than luck element), but this is still a hell of a lot less skill required for high level play than in Bridge. And to speak plainly - I doubt that many, many 40K players who consider themselves capable would even understand casual level Bridge and would most certainly fell out the wagon pretty quick when presented with all Bridge depth, except for those few at the top of the ladder. In other words - 40K may seem skill based only when compared to other luck involving games, but is pale in comparison with Go, Bridge or Chess. "Requires limited skill" is a matter of perspective. Imagine this: if instead of how much VPs you got at the end of the game the winner of the 40K match would be the person who more accurately predicted the entire flow of the game, in advance, based on limited information expressed in artificial and higly limited language. Not only predict a winner or an end score, but tell the entire game to a judge in advance, move by move, result by result, every decision made by both players from deployment to the last roll based solely on deployment. That is how even casual level Bridge works for 52 separate decisions made by four players in two teams. 52 decisions is close to amount of decisions that happen during last three turns of a typical 40K game - if your game ends in tabling mid 2nd turn players don't even make that much. Because how different game tree between Bridge and Chess is, the number of moves ahead that chess masters see is about 20. In Go it's between 30-50. Even if you are a mediocre chess, go or Bridge player you can solve most of Eternal War games somewhere between second and third turn and with large list power discrepancies you can solve it closer to first turn and the rest are dice rolls.

 Horst wrote:
OK... then please explain to me how players like Nick Nanavati can use 3 different armies, and still have reliable results in the top 3 of almost every tournament he goes to? Or how TJ Lannigan can have 5 GT wins with a different army (one Nick hasn't played)?

At these tournaments, everyone is trying to bring the best list they can. I've certainly beaten other players using similar lists to theirs. Why then are some players able to consistently place highly in GT's?

Cheating?

I mean, I don't follow any of this stuff, but I do remember a scandal not too long ago where a top ranking tournament player was basically disgraced out of the game when his cheating was caught on camera. And I remember the discussions at the time being how rampant cheating is in the tournament scene. And I don't think that's the only time a cheating scandal has happened in the 40k tournament scene. I mean, I have no idea if these guys are cheating. I have no idea who they even are. But, in really competitive environments, especially when money or reputation is on the line, cheating isn't exactly uncommon (ask that guy with the one testicle).

To be sure, I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just offering up a potential answer to your question that you may not have considered.

 Sqorgar wrote:
To be sure, I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

"I'm not accusing you of murdering that guy, I'm just asking questions about what it might be like if you had murdered that guy and why you might have done it". If you're going to accuse someone of cheating, even implicitly, at least have the courage to do it directly instead of hiding behind weasel words and hoping you don't get a rule #1 ban.

Peregrine wrote:”I'm not accusing you of murdering that guy, I'm just asking questions about what it might be like if you had murdered that guy and why you might have done it". If you're going to accuse someone of cheating, even implicitly, at least have the courage to do it directly instead of hiding behind weasel words and hoping you don't get a rule #1 ban.

Sqorgar wrote:I don't follow any of this stuff... I have no idea if these guys are cheating. I have no idea who they even are... I'm not accusing anybody of anything...

There's an enormous amount of evidence out there that the top players win edition in and edition out, with a variety of lists, against a variety of competition. Because they're highly skilled players.

There's also an enormous amount of evidence that even the known "overpowered" lists from time to time rarely exceed about a 60% win rate, meaning 40% of those games are lost.

There's NO evidence to support the argument that list is the only thing that matters, or that it's primarily a dice-odds-based luck-based game.

You're going to have to actually provide more than assertion to overcome what becomes an increasing volume of evidence that skill matters quite a lot.

If there are say 20 lists in an entire game, and three of those lists are mathematically over powered, but 80% of the lists in attendance are those three lists, and those three lists never have a higher than 60% win rate, is it fair to say the list doesn't matter as much as skill because those lists lose 40% of the time, or does the fact that those three overpowered lists face off and beat each other 60/40 but the other 17 lists get face rolled 90/10 matter?*

(note I know there are more than 20 lists in the game and I know there are more than 3 lists that show up but the gist is still there, the same 3 or 4 lists or themes are usually predominant with a smattering of everything else)

You would need to break down list vs list statistics before the 60/40 rate means much because the same type of lists are predominantly present with minor permutations.

Target priority and maximizing math odds are indeed skills: the two most influential skills in 40k.

If you want to solve this chestnut after 30 years of people arguing about it once and for all you'd need to get those top players playing garbage or meh lists and doing equally well with them before the assertion that skill matters a lot can equally bear weight as the argument lists matter more.

There are and always will be outliers and a couple people will buck the trend and actually do well with garbage lists. I've known two such people in my life in my own twenty odd years of 40k that could do that, out of hundreds I played against on the tournament circuit. The rest required powerful lists to stay on top as much as their target prioritization skills and ability to formulate what an undercost overpowered unit was and to max it out.

 auticus wrote:
If there are say 20 lists in an entire game, and three of those lists are mathematically over powered, but 80% of the lists in attendance are those three lists, and those three lists never have a higher than 60% win rate, is it fair to say the list doesn't matter as much as skill because those lists lose 40% of the time, or does the fact that those three overpowered lists face off and beat each other 60/40 but the other 17 lists get face rolled 90/10 matter?*

(note I know there are more than 20 lists in the game and I know there are more than 3 lists that show up but the gist is still there, the same 3 or 4 lists or themes are usually predominant with a smattering of everything else)

You would need to break down list vs list statistics before the 60/40 rate means much because the same type of lists are predominantly present with minor permutations.

Target priority and maximizing math odds are indeed skills: the two most influential skills in 40k.

If you want to solve this chestnut after 30 years of people arguing about it once and for all you'd need to get those top players playing garbage or meh lists and doing equally well with them before the assertion that skill matters a lot can equally bear weight as the argument lists matter more.

There are and always will be outliers and a couple people will buck the trend and actually do well with garbage lists. I've known two such people in my life in my own twenty odd years of 40k that could do that, out of hundreds I played against on the tournament circuit. The rest required powerful lists to stay on top as much as their target prioritization skills and ability to formulate what an undercost overpowered unit was and to max it out.

The statistics have been broken down, repeatedly; it's not 80% of the field with only 3 lists, by a long shot. Also the garbage or suboptimal list stuff happens all the time. Hell, I basically nerfed my list by adding a bunch of cute Tauroxes to it and won LGT, against 5 ETC captains and team members fielding "the" archetypal lists of the time.

ive never seen a site that broke down those stats past superficial levels because of the work involved.

Ive also heard a great many people call that they played with a gimp list only to find gimp meant an A list instead of an A+ list.

I dont think things have changed that much since i did the gt circuit.

Going off my own experience, i dont believe it until we have events where these good players are playing trash and we can all objectively see its trash not just a powerlist minorly toned down.

And we would need a solid site with actual list breakdowns if we are going to use those statistics, otherwise those are hollow numbers.

*events with set lists would also distinguish good players from listbuilding crutch pilots that lucked into a high place via luck of opponents.

My first year of 40k i top ten’d a gt because i played 3rd ed eldar and was fed six marine players.

Not because i was super skilled.

 auticus wrote:
If there are say 20 lists in an entire game, and three of those lists are mathematically over powered, but 80% of the lists in attendance are those three lists, and those three lists never have a higher than 60% win rate, is it fair to say the list doesn't matter as much as skill because those lists lose 40% of the time, or does the fact that those three overpowered lists face off and beat each other 60/40 but the other 17 lists get face rolled 90/10 matter?*

(note I know there are more than 20 lists in the game and I know there are more than 3 lists that show up but the gist is still there, the same 3 or 4 lists or themes are usually predominant with a smattering of everything else)

One of the big problems with the way people report and see tournament results is a tendency to focus on the podium. It's certainly an important spot but its also a pretty significant minority of the tournament and tends to drive that "3 or 4 list" focus simply because by definition; there's no more than 4 lists in the top 4. You find that TOs often have a cheerier outlook on the meta because they tend to have to look at at least all the X-1's, which is a pretty significant accomplishment that should be largely indistinguishable from 2nd or 3rd anyway. You tend to see a lot more variety if you look at larger fields, like every list with one loss or every list undefeated with 2 rounds left to go in the tournament, which is where you really start to see the difference between "good lists" and "good players" and can get a good idea on the former.

Part of the problem is that people want a champion and go to somewhat self defeating lengths to filter out the noise that variety creates. For example, I've seen people catalog ever Imperium list with the loyal 32 as the same thing regardless of what the remaining 1800 points consists of. We're creates that seek out patterns and sometimes are quick to remove details that break up the patterns that make the data make sense to us. Even in 2 lists that are largely the same, there are a couple hundred points of variance that we're quick to dismiss because our brain wants stability. Right now, 40k has some of the most varied tournament results of any game system I've ever been a part of, and honestly, seeing how quickly people break it down into the narrow window of the accomplishments of a half dozen people makes me curious if its more of an issue with the way people see tournament results than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

Ive also heard a great many people call that they played with a gimp list only to find gimp meant an A list instead of an A+ list.

The internet is full of armchair quarterbacks that don't realize their only perspective difference between those two is that an A list COULD win a tounament and an A+ list HAS won a tournament. Only so many lists can get a little gold star each week after all and if that's your only measurement of power and quality than you're completely restricted by the choices and accomplishments of others.

For me when I say "a good player fields a trash list or a meh list" that is me saying a list that is sub optimal (trash) or middle of the road (meh).

An "A" quality list is still a power list.

If the argument is "lists don't mean as much as you think" and the player in question is talking about "A" lists instead of "A+" lists, I don't find there to be much of a difference at all.

Again speaking from my own experiences. I top 10'd at a handful of GTs with busted lists in the long ago, and when I lost my broken lists and fielded average to meh lists my win rate dropped exponentially.

But according to the logic I hear often, because I placed high at tournaments, to include regional grand tournaments, regularly, that means I'm highly skilled and my lists didn't mean as much.

But my lists, and all of my peers at the times' lists were every reason why we were able to constantly place high in tournaments and when we lost those power lists, we stopped placing at the top of tournaments.

Which is why my opinion is, based on my own experience, that lists in 40k are the majority piece, and the skill part revolves around target priority and then getting lucky with who they pair you up against.

Now some people also consider listbuilding a skill.

These are all personal opinion but I don't consider listbuilding a skill of any merit because it was mostly using middle school math to determine where the holes were in 10 minutes.

Target priority is a skill albeit the only one that really matters in the game. You couple target priority with the ability to maximize the dice odds (list building). There are your needed skills.

To me thats not skillful play. Maybe because I also used to play tournament chess and have played too many other wargames where 40k as a game of skill is not something I consider by my own standards or consideration.

Could someone be specific about what exactly makes 40k skillful? Because I'm not sure what to make of it when lined up next to other games that just seem much more involved.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Could someone be specific about what exactly makes 40k skillful? Because I'm not sure what to make of it when lined up next to other games that just seem much more involved.

It's the ability to plan ahead and to keep track of everything going on. Let me give you an example... Guard vs Genestealer Cults. Guard has some leman russes, some bullgryn, a few sentinels, and a bunch of infantry. Genestealers have 2 squads of Acolytes with Rocksaws, 2 squads of Abberants with picks and stopsigns, a flamer bomb squad of acolytes, and a bunch of characters to buff everything, with a bunch of smaller characters. Assume Guard gets unlucky and has to go first.

Guard needs to keep the Leman Russes alive, that's the primary goal, since that's most of the firepower. But all the Genestealers can deep strike and assault. They can also deep strike the flamer squad in within 3" of you, kill a bunch of infantry, and then deep strike a harder hitting squad into the cleared hole, then assault with them. SO, Guard needs to carefully position their army such that there are multiple layers of infantry screens between the important tanks and the possible deep strikers. They also need to ensure the Bullgryns are in a position where they can counter-charge any high-value targets that come in. Guard needs to try to anticipate where the GSC will want to deep strike, and have a plan to counter it, keeping in mind that the GSC player may assault in such a way that they take a squad "hostage", so that they cannot be shot at. If you remove the wrong guy in the shooting phase, it might give the GSC an opportunity to easily surround a unit in the assault phase, letting him take a hostage. You want to prevent this at all costs, or at least control where it happens so the Bullgryn can counter charge.

You need to keep all this in mind, while planning what objectives you can take from your opponent (admittedly not difficult vs GSC in an ITC matchup, Headhunter, Engineers, and Reaper most likely) while preventing the opponent from getting "Kill More", since he'll almost certainly hold more objectives every turn. This isn't easy, given that you'll need to sacrifice 2-3 squads of Infantry per turn to keep him off your valuable units.

As a Guard player, this is all stuff you need to keep in mind for ONE matchup.... Tau require a different approach, as do Knights and Eldar and Orks and every other top tier army out there. If you don't have a plan for every matchup you go into, you are not going to win vs a skilled opponent fielding that army.