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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. What kind of skills are we talking about?
If it's something like kicking a ball or swining a bat. Something that is actually difficult and requires practice it should be about 100%. In a wargame though. There aren't real skills beyond the learning curve for the game.

In a game where you know the rules and your opponent doesn't you shouldn't even be trying to win that. You should be teaching them to play. If they know the rules but just suck at strategy in general you should win probable about 80%.

Outside of that anything more than a 60% WR should be unreplicatable in a game where everything else is equal but your "skill" if dice is involved.

I think this might take the cake for 'dumbest thing I've heard on dakka'. I might sceenshot this for the 'gak dakka says' podcast I've been thinking about doing for a while now.

Kicking a ball and swinging a bat are things children do on accident.

The rest of this honestly says more about you than it does about wargaming. It seems like you've convinced yourself that skill is unattainable in a clearly skill based game to justify your own lack of success. This suggests that you are not one for accepting fault for your own failures.

I could spend a while tearing apart the 'well if they suck, 80% ' line but lets just hit the high points. 'If they suck' you mean like lacking SKILL in an activity leading to defeat at the hand of a more SKILLED opponent? '80%' If you're only beating someone who sucks 80% of the time, it's because you suck only slightly less. A good player shouldn't be losing to a below average player that often, let alone someone who sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Equally good armies that are tuned against each other, the higher skill player should win almost every time. Like 80% of the time. Random luck can happen, but if everything is equal except the skill, higher skill should win.

That is true. Equal armies do show you who is the better player, not the player who can build (or copy) the most efficient mathematical list.

Except being able to build the better list is PART of the skill aspect of the game. Using the exact same list also over-emphasizes list familiarity, playstyle affinity, and ESPECIALLY first turn advantage.

People who are bad tend to overcredit list strength (as a way to excuse their own lack of success) but the truth is at a level of competition where the games actually matter (top 16 at major tourneys) all the lists are pretty much the same powerlevel anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I voted 70% for what it's worth. The worst player in the shop winning only 1/10 games is unacceptable in my opinion. 1/5 still not great. 3/10 seems ok.

Assuming that the worst player is genuinely a terrible player (and not just the guy who only finishes in the top 10 of major tournaments instead of winning them like the rest of the group) why shouldn't they lose 90% of the time or more? For a terrible player to win 30% of their games you have to have a game where RNG thoroughly invalidates player agency. And at that point why bother playing? Your decisions won't matter very much, so why not just roll a bunch of dice and see who rolls better?

Because no one who invests significant money in this hobby should lose too much.

Yeah, ok, if they are truly awful - like a 7 year old playing against veteran adults - sure then it should be a higher chance of a loss. But randomness necessarily should be a big part of deciding the winner. Less significant than skill, but it needs to be up there.

Because no one who invests significant money in this hobby should lose too much.

Not sure what that has to do with an Ideal wargame. An ideal wargame is one you invest no money in

If people are losing a lot and that is an issue for them because it will cost money then they stop collecting/playing (ergo invest very little). If they continue to pay and play then it probably isn't an issue at all. Not everyone worries about win/loss ratios, things like collecting/painting/making dioramas (and the odd game you always lose) and just playing friendly games for the social interaction with your friends are also a factor in why we spend money.

I keep thinking about games like Warmachine or Hordes. The skill level in that game is one where the only real issue is keeping a new player's interest while acquiring the same level of knowledge as the general player base. Not enough screening? Dead warnoun. Positioning bad? Dead warnoun. The biggest game determinant is player skill, as most units and models can be used depending on the list. 40k on the other hand? Balanced by throwing lots of dice.

Dead warnoun? endgame.

 carldooley wrote:
I keep thinking about games like Warmachine or Hordes. The skill level in that game is one where the only real issue is keeping a new player's interest while acquiring the same level of knowledge as the general player base. Not enough screening? Dead warnoun. Positioning bad? Dead warnoun. The biggest game determinant is player skill, as most units and models can be used depending on the list. 40k on the other hand? Balanced by throwing lots of dice.

Dead warnoun? endgame.

At the other end, Frostgrave. A single dice (D20) roll off for most things with small modifiers = high variability and a game where skill seems to hardly matter. That has its upsides, you are seldom out of a game until the end and beginners have a decent chance fairly quickly. The downside is outwitting the opponent only to watch that D20 roll off wipe you out. Whilst I'm not so much a mini player (more board wargames) so haven't played a lot of mini games, Frostgrave is probably the most RNG over skill 'wargame' I've met. Although it is still quite fun.

I miss some of the more random elements from previous editions like scattering, terrain effects, vehicles getting stuck or models slowed down by terrain. How you react and recover from something not going quite as planned is a sign of skill and also leads to some memorable moments.

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
My ideal "wargame" is always Side A vs. Side B vs. Chaos (Chaos = weather, unforeseen events, random occurrences, things outside of the player's control etc.)

I will never understand the appeal of this. Sure, a heavy RNG element for environment/random chaos/etc may make a more accurate simulation of a battle, but it's a miserable experience as a game. When that kind of RNG is significant enough to bother with including you have a high chance of ending up with games where RNG determines a winner and playing out the game is pointless. So yeah, it might be an accurate simulation if half of your 40k army is consumed by a warp storm before the game begins, but then what is the point of playing 2000 points vs. 1000 points once RNG has decided that you lose? You might as well declare the winner at that point, set up another game, and hope that the RNG lets you actually play it.[/quote

I think the best is to have a game where the core balance is Army A VS Army B and then you can add on top weather or wandering monsters or spells or such for the random chaos on top. Ergo make the core game balanced and then you can introduce fun other stuff on top as a bolt on extra. Sometimes its nice to spice things up having a wandering dragon in the middle of the battlefield; or have weather effects; or do a running chase etc..../


*Running chase - where every end of turn all the terrain moves X inches in the same direction to reflect the army doing a filght through a scene. So it might be bikes and such in 40K (old white dwarf had it with jetbikes years ago); or cavalry in AoS]

ERJAK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. What kind of skills are we talking about?
If it's something like kicking a ball or swining a bat. Something that is actually difficult and requires practice it should be about 100%. In a wargame though. There aren't real skills beyond the learning curve for the game.

In a game where you know the rules and your opponent doesn't you shouldn't even be trying to win that. You should be teaching them to play. If they know the rules but just suck at strategy in general you should win probable about 80%.

Outside of that anything more than a 60% WR should be unreplicatable in a game where everything else is equal but your "skill" if dice is involved.

I think this might take the cake for 'dumbest thing I've heard on dakka'. I might sceenshot this for the 'gak dakka says' podcast I've been thinking about doing for a while now.

Kicking a ball and swinging a bat are things children do on accident.

The rest of this honestly says more about you than it does about wargaming. It seems like you've convinced yourself that skill is unattainable in a clearly skill based game to justify your own lack of success. This suggests that you are not one for accepting fault for your own failures.

I could spend a while tearing apart the 'well if they suck, 80% ' line but lets just hit the high points. 'If they suck' you mean like lacking SKILL in an activity leading to defeat at the hand of a more SKILLED opponent? '80%' If you're only beating someone who sucks 80% of the time, it's because you suck only slightly less. A good player shouldn't be losing to a below average player that often, let alone someone who sucks\

I actually almost agree with Xeno here, the amount of "skill" involved in most wargames is equivalent to the amount of skill in card games, ie, hearthstone.
There really isn't much, and as long as you understand the rules and rule interactions you can netlist and netgame the rest.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. What kind of skills are we talking about?
If it's something like kicking a ball or swining a bat. Something that is actually difficult and requires practice it should be about 100%. In a wargame though. There aren't real skills beyond the learning curve for the game.

In a game where you know the rules and your opponent doesn't you shouldn't even be trying to win that. You should be teaching them to play. If they know the rules but just suck at strategy in general you should win probable about 80%.

Outside of that anything more than a 60% WR should be unreplicatable in a game where everything else is equal but your "skill" if dice is involved.

I think this might take the cake for 'dumbest thing I've heard on dakka'. I might sceenshot this for the 'gak dakka says' podcast I've been thinking about doing for a while now.

Kicking a ball and swinging a bat are things children do on accident.

The rest of this honestly says more about you than it does about wargaming. It seems like you've convinced yourself that skill is unattainable in a clearly skill based game to justify your own lack of success. This suggests that you are not one for accepting fault for your own failures.

I could spend a while tearing apart the 'well if they suck, 80% ' line but lets just hit the high points. 'If they suck' you mean like lacking SKILL in an activity leading to defeat at the hand of a more SKILLED opponent? '80%' If you're only beating someone who sucks 80% of the time, it's because you suck only slightly less. A good player shouldn't be losing to a below average player that often, let alone someone who sucks\

I actually almost agree with Xeno here, the amount of "skill" involved in most wargames is equivalent to the amount of skill in card games, ie, hearthstone.
There really isn't much, and as long as you understand the rules and rule interactions you can netlist and netgame the rest.

Okay. But this isn't about 40k as it stands now, this is about a hypothetical IDEAL 40k, or other wargame.

Chess is, for instance, a wargame. Would you say there's no skill involved in chess?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Okay. But this isn't about 40k as it stands now, this is about a hypothetical IDEAL 40k, or other wargame.

Chess is, for instance, a wargame. Would you say there's no skill involved in chess?

Chess is less of a wargame and more of a logic game. But in any case I'd say yes, there is skill involved in chess.

So, in a hypothetical version of 40k that's as close to the perfect wargame as possible, should player skill be a factor beyond just basic rules knowledge?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, in a hypothetical version of 40k that's as close to the perfect wargame as possible, should player skill be a factor beyond just basic rules knowledge?

See, I'm not sure. I've played a LOT of wargame tabletops and most of the "skill" revolves around building the right list and knowing the rule minutiae.
(And no, list building isn't a showcase of skill)

People who are bad tend to overcredit list strength (as a way to excuse their own lack of success)

Listbuilding is by far not a display of skill to me. Its a display of understanding middle school math and knowing that the guy with 5 attacks at S5 and costs 80 points is superior to the guy with 5 attacks at S4 but who costs 75 points. Or in GW's case, the guy with 3 attacks at S4 who for whatever reason costs 120 points next to the 80 point guy with 5 S5 attacks. Because he has some super cool cinematic power that works in jungle terrain that is likely to never be encountered.

Taken to a final conclusion with a spreadsheet. Anyone that has any small amount of Algebra experience can macro code an excel spreadsheet to break those numbers down into a power coefficient.

I know. I did that for ten years. And placed high at the GT level. So I know at least for me, I'm not downplaying listbuilding because "i'm bad at the game and need an excuse". I played at the GT level, had several high places, and the lists were crutches for pretty much everyone in attendance.

My first GT experience was Baltimore in 1999 and I had been playing 40k a year and I placed near the top 10 with eldar. Because my list was busted, and I copy/pasted it off of Portent.net and got lucky I was fed space marine opponents the entire event. I thought I was pretty hot **** back then though and would have jumped on anyone saying listbuilding was not a skill. But really it wasn't, and when you took my busted lists away from me I am a 50/50 player that wins as much as they lose.

And since 2000 or so lists are as easy as copy/paste. As far as LISTBUILDING is concerned, that makes it a non-skill to me.

Now for anyone who would challenge others by saying listbuilding is a skill and only people that are bad would say its not, I challenge them to hit up adepticon or the LVO with a middle of the road list or a close to garbage list and then go on and win or place very high in the event, and at that point I'll believe that listbuilding isn't that big of a deal in its weight and impact on the game. There have been a small handful of people that have done that, and those players are really good. They are a very tiny percentage of the tournament population as well.

I initially said 80% but out of curiosity I went and looked at some professional sports leagues and i could only find one where the team with the best season record won 80% of their games (NFL) and it also happened to be one of the smaller number of games played at 16, the two leagues with 82 games played were both mid 70% and the league with over 160 games played had the bext record at 67% winning record so maybe 70% is a better number. Of course those are team sports, would be interesting to see something similar for something like tennis.

Jerram wrote:
I initially said 80% but out of curiosity I went and looked at some professional sports leagues and i could only find one where the team with the best season record won 80% of their games (NFL) and it also happened to be one of the smaller number of games played at 16, the two leagues with 82 games played were both mid 70% and the league with over 160 games played had the bext record at 67% winning record so maybe 70% is a better number. Of course those are team sports, would be interesting to see something similar for something like tennis.

That's not a very good comparison because professional leagues only have the absolute best players with a very small skill gap. Even the worst professional team is still the elite of the elite in the sport as a whole. A more relevant win rate would be, say, having an NBA team play 82 games of basketball against a random high school team. The NBA team is almost certainly going to win every single game by massive margins, and the lesser team being able to score at all is probably going to require some fluke luck. And god help the amateurs who have to play against an NFL team, as the entire team will probably end up in the hospital.

so I said 70%, but if the game was better designed I'd think 100% was fair, as long as GW included some sort of built in handicap option for players to use when going up against someone they know is worse off than them.

When I was a kid, if my dad beat me in a game of chess he's spot me a piece for the next game. If he beat me again, he'd spot me another piece, and so on and so on until I won. Then it'd go the other way. It kept the game fun and a challenge for both of us, rather than being boring for one and miserable for the other.

puree wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
I keep thinking about games like Warmachine or Hordes. The skill level in that game is one where the only real issue is keeping a new player's interest while acquiring the same level of knowledge as the general player base. Not enough screening? Dead warnoun. Positioning bad? Dead warnoun. The biggest game determinant is player skill, as most units and models can be used depending on the list. 40k on the other hand? Balanced by throwing lots of dice.

Dead warnoun? endgame.

At the other end, Frostgrave. A single dice (D20) roll off for most things with small modifiers = high variability and a game where skill seems to hardly matter. That has its upsides, you are seldom out of a game until the end and beginners have a decent chance fairly quickly. The downside is outwitting the opponent only to watch that D20 roll off wipe you out. Whilst I'm not so much a mini player (more board wargames) so haven't played a lot of mini games, Frostgrave is probably the most RNG over skill 'wargame' I've met. Although it is still quite fun.

We have end up returning to other games over frostgrave. It was a long paranoid mess of a game, Where even fun mechanics could be such a huge detriment we stopped using them.
You can also due to the way some things work, Completely break the game.
It has a huge skill gap, with the RNG mostly only matter at the low end. But with some things really easy to abuse if done right. I think it needs a second go at the rules as much as i think 40k does D:

In an ideal 40k set up, meaning the game hasn't reduced itself to "cookiecutter powergaming netlist where it doesnt matter who you kill first since 70% of army is getting wiped first turn anyways" situation, it comes down to LOS denial, funneling, and target selection as far as "skills" go. Common "skills" some people refer to such as screening, reserves, and DS denial happens at list building - so if you count that as "skills," so be it.

Terrain is largely underrated (rightfully so as 40k terrain ruleset is wonky at best, counter productive at worst) in a game of 40k. With proper terrain set up, you will be able to curtail your enemies' shooting capacity by a large degree, forcing them out of position just to be able to shoot at you. Forcing them OOP can turn the tides for you by creating space for DS or fast units to squeeze into, and even force them off objectives.

puree wrote:

I will never understand the appeal of this. Sure, a heavy RNG element for environment/random chaos/etc may make a more accurate simulation of a battle, but it's a miserable experience as a game. When that kind of RNG is significant enough to bother with including you have a high chance of ending up with games where RNG determines a winner and playing out the game is pointless. So yeah, it might be an accurate simulation if half of your 40k army is consumed by a warp storm before the game begins, but then what is the point of playing 2000 points vs. 1000 points once RNG has decided that you lose? You might as well declare the winner at that point, set up another game, and hope that the RNG lets you actually play it.

Undoubtedly you know that is pure hyperbole (as a response to what you replied to).

The first SPI game I got at the age of 12 was Rostov: The First Soviet Counter-Attack (german vs soviet 1941). It had random weather per day, random reinforcements, heck the soviet player didn't even know the value of his own units until they fought the first time - was the hastily thrown in infantry division going to melt away at first contact or be heroes of the soviet union. Plenty of random reflection of reality.

It was not in any way a miserable game, it was still a good game with plenty of tactics and strategy. The germans needing to race against an increasing soviet buildup and worsening weather starting from an overwhelming start position. The random elements reflected certain aspects of the operation - you knew the likely weather, but not what it would be day to day, you knew you were getting that armor division, but would it arrive tomorrow or in 2 days time, you knew another russian formation had been thrown in and the sort of range of values it might have but until first contact couldn't be sure what it would be.

These are issues which a good player can handle and plan for, just because you can't plan for a division arriving this turn doesn't mean you can't plan for it arriving at all. As noted above what can separate the good from bad player is the ability to have plans AND backup plans. If you didn't plan for the delay in extra troops you were fully aware was a 33% possibility that is your fault, if you were crippled by the snow that had a 50% probability today that was your fault.

\

This is what we'd call a narrative campaign in 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

People who are bad tend to overcredit list strength (as a way to excuse their own lack of success)

Listbuilding is by far not a display of skill to me. Its a display of understanding middle school math and knowing that the guy with 5 attacks at S5 and costs 80 points is superior to the guy with 5 attacks at S4 but who costs 75 points. Or in GW's case, the guy with 3 attacks at S4 who for whatever reason costs 120 points next to the 80 point guy with 5 S5 attacks. Because he has some super cool cinematic power that works in jungle terrain that is likely to never be encountered.

Taken to a final conclusion with a spreadsheet. Anyone that has any small amount of Algebra experience can macro code an excel spreadsheet to break those numbers down into a power coefficient.

I know. I did that for ten years. And placed high at the GT level. So I know at least for me, I'm not downplaying listbuilding because "i'm bad at the game and need an excuse". I played at the GT level, had several high places, and the lists were crutches for pretty much everyone in attendance.

My first GT experience was Baltimore in 1999 and I had been playing 40k a year and I placed near the top 10 with eldar. Because my list was busted, and I copy/pasted it off of Portent.net and got lucky I was fed space marine opponents the entire event. I thought I was pretty hot **** back then though and would have jumped on anyone saying listbuilding was not a skill. But really it wasn't, and when you took my busted lists away from me I am a 50/50 player that wins as much as they lose.

And since 2000 or so lists are as easy as copy/paste. As far as LISTBUILDING is concerned, that makes it a non-skill to me.

Now for anyone who would challenge others by saying listbuilding is a skill and only people that are bad would say its not, I challenge them to hit up adepticon or the LVO with a middle of the road list or a close to garbage list and then go on and win or place very high in the event, and at that point I'll believe that listbuilding isn't that big of a deal in its weight and impact on the game. There have been a small handful of people that have done that, and those players are really good. They are a very tiny percentage of the tournament population as well.

I mean, there's some skill in throwing up that excel sheet. It'd take me a while to do it since I'm bad at excel and algebra.

I do feel obliged to point out that the more granularity you add to the game that make skill matter, the harder it is for the game to be played at a large scale. There are games out there with a much higher degree of tactics then 40k absolutely, but trying to play them at the scale 40k is played at would be... difficult. a game involving a small number of units can make for a much greater amount of depth, with things like range envolvopes, speed, terrain, angle of fire etc all being more possiable.

As a fun-player, who likes to laugh and joke with the other people around the table (I don't like the word opponent in that context), I love random events.
There was this game (I think it was Judge Dredd) were every roll of six caused a random event and it was nuts...
You get to see absurd actions, heroic deeds and crazy kills - that's what I'm up to.
Such a game messes with things like skill and win-greed and therefor it can be quite frustrating for someone who takes it to serious.

On the other hand, I understand (and sometimes also like) some kind of "professional" comparing of tactics (don't nail me down on this word please) and skills - in these games there is no room for those big random incidents, because they anticipate almost every seroius competition...

So, I find it to be a difficult question without marking the context any further.
Perfect wargame for funny and crazy evenings / weekends / whatever? For me it's big bunch of random events you can't controll completely

Perfect wargame to simulate a serious battle between equal (on the powerlevel side) forces? Tone down the randomness to a minimum and let the player controll what happens on the battlefield

I need an it depends on the difference in skill level. I think there are some players who will swap wins most of the time because they are of similar skill, and others matchups where one player nearly always wins.

As to those saying there is no skill in wargames, that is 100% false, there are plenty of games where model positioning matters, quick assessment of chance of success matters, strategy with regards to the mission matters, etc

How much those things matter depends on the rules of the game, in games with constant win conditions (like tabling) the skill is lower, in those with more objective based win conditions it is higher. Any game with more need for movement will have a higher skill level.

I mean, there's some skill in throwing up that excel sheet. It'd take me a while to do it since I'm bad at excel and algebra.

Fair enough, but if you look hard enough you can also find tools online that help identify power coefficients or find someone that is good at writing tools and math to make one for you. Essentially listbuilding as a "skill" is laughable. If when I was an athlete I could go take a pill and instantly get several years worth of weight training and endurance without having to do the work, that would have gone a long way for me. I could have then just focused on "the skill" of the game.

Breng77 wrote:


As to those saying there is no skill in wargames, that is 100% false, there are plenty of games where model positioning matters, quick assessment of chance of success matters, strategy with regards to the mission matters, etc

We are definitely missing an agreement on what skill is. Its all of the above and then some. In high level games the variability in lists should be minimal like tournament final tables so what is the difference in skill? Part of this is making mistakes. I've played a lot of chess and as the game develops the end winner is the one who didn't make as many or any mistakes. A perfect example of this is the LVO 2018 final between Nick and Tony which was iirc a mirror match. In this game Tony made a mistake in order of processing stratagems with movement and lost him a game that he looked like he was going to win. At the time Nick was touted as the best player in the world (debatable) but he was losing before the mistake.

Assuming lists are not skill, what separates the higher level players from the intermediate is their abilities to make mistakes under pressure.

 Nithaniel wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


As to those saying there is no skill in wargames, that is 100% false, there are plenty of games where model positioning matters, quick assessment of chance of success matters, strategy with regards to the mission matters, etc

We are definitely missing an agreement on what skill is. Its all of the above and then some. In high level games the variability in lists should be minimal like tournament final tables so what is the difference in skill? Part of this is making mistakes. I've played a lot of chess and as the game develops the end winner is the one who didn't make as many or any mistakes. A perfect example of this is the LVO 2018 final between Nick and Tony which was iirc a mirror match. In this game Tony made a mistake in order of processing stratagems with movement and lost him a game that he looked like he was going to win. At the time Nick was touted as the best player in the world (debatable) but he was losing before the mistake.

Assuming lists are not skill, what separates the higher level players from the intermediate is their abilities to make mistakes under pressure.

I find this to be a vastly underestimated part of the game. A lot of people at tournaments have a reasonably high skill level but it is the ability to keep all that in your head whilst trying to think through then next steps you need to make where the real skill lies.

A lot of people can screen well, play the objectives well, have decent target prority and know how to limit your opponets options. But to be able to do all that simultaneously, under a time pressure, after playing over long periods is where the real skill lies.

 Nithaniel wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


As to those saying there is no skill in wargames, that is 100% false, there are plenty of games where model positioning matters, quick assessment of chance of success matters, strategy with regards to the mission matters, etc

We are definitely missing an agreement on what skill is. Its all of the above and then some. In high level games the variability in lists should be minimal like tournament final tables so what is the difference in skill? Part of this is making mistakes. I've played a lot of chess and as the game develops the end winner is the one who didn't make as many or any mistakes. A perfect example of this is the LVO 2018 final between Nick and Tony which was iirc a mirror match. In this game Tony made a mistake in order of processing stratagems with movement and lost him a game that he looked like he was going to win. At the time Nick was touted as the best player in the world (debatable) but he was losing before the mistake.

Assuming lists are not skill, what separates the higher level players from the intermediate is their abilities to make mistakes under pressure.

yes that is also a skill, being able to make good decisions under fatigue and pressure. Part of not making mistakes is also understanding what your opponents options are and weighing how your moves will interact with those options. With a time limit (especially if the game is clocked in some way) your ability to rapidly make good decisions is also a skill. There is also practiced skill, if you think about sports and why some guys have say a really good jump shot it is part natural ability and huge part repetition in practice. Top players in general play a lot more games than others. At my competitive peak (generally winning more than losing at big GTs, never near the top) I was playing about one game a week, and usually against the same small group of players. SO I was not always familiar with how every opposing army played, so it wasn't second nature to make certain moves.

My larger point was that those that believe that no skill is involved in wargaming are delusional, or are players who themselves are not skilled but don't want to admit that better players are better than them for objective reasons like skill.

I think this thread has warped my opinion a bit.

I think what the ideal wargame is varies between people.

On one end of the spectrum, people want a narrative spectacle to see their minis have fun. The absolutest take on that would be a 50% win rate, regardless of skill (beyond basic game knowledge). The idea being, the rules are there to provide a spectacle. It's not a challenge - it's an experience.

On the other end of the spectrum, people want a competition. They want a forum for proving superiority. They want a game that is tactically or strategically deep (or both), so they can measure their ability against an opponent. The absolutest take on this would be a 100% win rate for any difference in skill. The idea being, we're here to measure ability. And the further from 100% we get, the less meaningful the results are.

Now, the first group will call the second group WAACs. And the second group will call the first group CAACs. Neither is accurate. The first group is less competitive, and more into wargames as a venue for expression. The second group is more competitive, and more into wargames as a way to prove ability. So neither side is "right" or "wrong" - just different concepts.

To make matters more confusing, most people aren't 100% in either category. Most people sit along the spectrum. Most people see value in both propositions - only the most extreme only care about one set (and I'd argue those people are better off in other hobbies, but that's another subject).

My ideal would be 65% when playing casually, or 75% when playing competitively; so there's a notable difference in outcome based on skill, but the game can take you into weird places you didn't expect based on dice.

I like that random chance can mean I wind up in strange situations like a bunch of Fire Warriors charging Marines (done that successfully before), or a single Chapter Master holding up a Wraithlord, Avatar, Phoenix Lord, and Banshee squad for most of the game (also happened to me). In both cases, these made for much more interesting games. But, on the other hand, I've loved games where I've been able to perfectly pick apart the opponent, such that I'm only really facing a quarter of their army at a time, and absolutely rock. In other words, 40k as-is provides a venue for both interests. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I am saying it's good.

So my answer is "Nowhere close to 100% or 50%".

Nail on the head for me.

Basically there is no single ideal wargame, because people want different things (and often don't actually know what they want).

Yeah second that from me. I've always enjoyed the challange of playing competitively but understand that's not what everyone wants.

I have a friend who will only play single codex and no named characters as he finds it unrealistic that Ahriman would be fighting small skirmishes with just a handful of thousand sons and some plaguebearers. And this will ruin the enjoyment of the game for him.

The benifit of 40k is it allows for both those perspectives if both people playing are on the same page.

 small_gods wrote:

The benifit of 40k is it allows for both those perspectives if both people playing are on the same page.

^ Very much so. It's fantastic in that regard.