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.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
"40k is over in turn 1"
"I killed 2.5 intercessors"
"I killed nothing".
Only 40 minutes, and the game may change, but you can see the problem. If the Eldar step out to play they run into 3+/5++/5+++ intercessors and won't do much. And if in the open to all the marine firepower with rerolling all the 1s and other buffs they will get crushed.
Its looking reminiscent of the Nayden/Siegler game from LVO 2020. I'm going to assume Nanavati will eventually have to commit, bounce and then get cleared.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/31 19:24:27
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies. Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/31 19:42:23
40k has all the balance and stability of a collectible card game in perpetual power creep. In addition to dated and overly complicated mechanics, the rollercoaster of broken rules are restarted with each edition; except now the problem with 9th will be the incredible bloat being dragged into it. It will certainly cause something broken to crawl out of the mess from the start. I am not complaining, in fact I enjoy it when a dumpster fire becomes a tire fire because this is currently a show I am able to watch without commiting more skin to the game.
Actually, since it will likely take 5-10 years, or never to create a Covid-19 vaccine there may not be a need to balance 40k for large competitive tournaments... But I am all for 40k players attempting the heard immunity strategy!
Paradigm for a happy relationship with Games Workshop: Burn the books and take the models to a different game.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
Sorry, but Siegfried DOES have a point. Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army, but they're still only chasing the meta, which means that money IS more important in the game than skill. A more impressive feat(and one that would prove your point more) would be one of them doing something akin to that time one of the high tier Warmachine players intentionally took a low tier Warcaster and units that every single player wrote off as "unplayable" and winning a Championship through nothing but sheer talent and skill simply to prove to people that the player matters more than the list played.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/01 01:56:04
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
To test how much skill matters, I'd rather see one of these two play someone who finished 40-60th at the same LVO, play two games, one with your own army, and then SWITCH armies to play. Not predicting the outcome (I happen to believe skill does matter, but not to the level some think. Maybe its 25%) but let's see how the IH player for example fares against his own army running a random list from the tournament. Then we might have a better judge of the skill involved in game play (as opposed to the skill involved in list building, which is more a matter of finding and taking the most unbalanced units in a very unbalanced system.)
Keeping the hobby side alive!
I never forget the Dakka unit scale is binary: Units are either OP or Garbage.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
Sorry, but Siegfried DOES have a point. Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army, but they're still only chasing the meta, which means that money IS more important in the game than skill. A more impressive feat(and one that would prove your point more) would be one of them doing something akin to that time one of the high tier Warmachine players intentionally took a low tier Warcaster and units that every single player wrote off as "unplayable" and winning a Championship through nothing but sheer talent and skill simply to prove to people that the player matters more than the list played.
"Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army,"
Thats the point, who cares if they can buy other armies, the point was, they are more skilled, and the fact they CAN go from army to army and still win shows how much more skillful than others they are.
And there are MANY players that buys meta armies every month or two, so what if these 5-8 players does it, there are 100's that does it too, but yet we don't see them winning all the time at large events.
The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/01 03:57:48
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Platuan4th wrote: The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
Part of the knowledge is using the best lists.... why is that a part part of competition? Why do you have to use the worst tools to win? Do you think Nascar drivers are using "worst tools? No.
The point is, they are winning and they ar doing something other meta chasing players are not doing, Saying they are bad b.c they are spending their money on it is fething stupid.
Platuan4th wrote: The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars, Smash Bros meele top players win many more games the moment they abandon their mains and start using the most OP characters, etc... the "I'm gonna win with the worst!" is just virtue signaling and goes agaisnt the reality that when you are competting you take every advantage you can.
And I believe that warhammer is not a skill intensive game, and the "top ceilling" of the game is more about doing the right mathematics and finding the proper and best combos for the list than actually playing it. But that has nothing to do with "They are just winning because they use the best tools" because thats just how things work in the top level of anything.
In general I just believe that when speaking about warhammer on the internet, most people doesn't want to acknowledge that they are actually pretty bad about playing the game, mediocre at best. I'm. I know. I don't care, and I'm sure most people that has posted in this thread is at best mediocre at the game. But I don't try to crap on better player accomplishements. Is like those that go "Bah, I COULD totally be doing Mythic Raids in wow, is a very easy game, you only need to avoid AoE and have the right equipement, but I just DON'T WANT TO". Is pathetic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 04:31:29
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars, Smash Bros meele top players win many more games the moment they abandon their mains and start using the most OP characters, etc... the "I'm gonna win with the worst!" is just virtue signaling and goes agaisnt the reality that when you are competting you take every advantage you can.
And I believe that warhammer is not a skill intensive game, and the "top ceilling" of the game is more about doing the right mathematics and finding the proper and best combos for the list than actually playing it. But that has nothing to do with "They are just winning because they use the best tools" because thats just how things work in the top level of anything.
In general I just believe that when speaking about warhammer on the internet, most people doesn't want to acknowledge that they are actually pretty bad about playing the game, mediocre at best. I'm. I know. I don't care, and I'm sure most people that has posted in this thread is at best mediocre at the game. But I don't try to crap on better player accomplishements. Is like those that go "Bah, I COULD totally be doing Mythic Raids in wow, is a very easy game, you only need to avoid AoE and have the right equipement, but I just DON'T WANT TO". Is pathetic.
I think it comes down to not liking the "skill".
As per the video - high end ITC is all about making measured bets, to say get kill more/hold more (and a degree secondaries, but those should really be in the bag.) Its about knowing that if you move there you should kill X and Y, but your opponent should be able to counter and kill A, B and C which would get them the point instead. If you play a weaker list its still the same approach, its just going to be more difficult to win, as the moves you can make that give you a probabilistic edge over your opponent are reduced. Its more like skill in say poker - where the trick is using all info available to you, and then applying pressure based on that.
In the same way, nothing stops you turning up and going "its all luck, I'm just going to go all in and hope for the dice/cards save me" - and indeed they will do in any given game or hand, but over time, better players will tend to win out because they are making bets where the odds are in their favour rather than not.
Whereas I think something like WoW is more like music. "Oh they use the better classes" - well you should use the better classes. "They use keybindings" - so should you. "They use addons" - so should you. They practice on a boss 250+ times - so should you etc. It is ultimately a function of pressing the right buttons in the right order - but just like playing a piano, some people have learned how to do it, and some people haven't. Most people I imagine could learn to play the piano (or any other instrument) - just as they could become mythic raiders - but the amount of work to learn how to do it is considerable. Saying anyone "could" learn how to do it doesn't take away from the fact right now the overwhelming majority of players couldn't.
Lots of apple and oranges here. If you want to compare 40k to something, better pick starcraft rather than car racing or wow raiding.
I stand by what i said in my first post and that you all approved when starting to say that choosing the best tools to win is part of the competition : it's the army that wins the game; at equivalent skills, the players are secondary.
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
There is also skew match ups. Or stuff like opponent doing worse, then other people from your bracket. It is not a fun thing to not qualify to a district event, because one of your opponents from round 2 got injured drop out, while at the same time the other guy that has the same points as you had all opponents fight full 4 bouts, and he goes through because he has more small points.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Sim-Life wrote: I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
I don't play Infinity anymore b.c it has HUGE luck swings (At least when i played its been 4yrs), so idk about that, if that has change let me know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 11:45:51
Sim-Life wrote: I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
But the evidence is that this isn't the case.
In 40k the same people come near the top in tournament after tournament. Which suggests they have more "skill" - as defined by the qualities necessary to win a game of 40k.
Since these people seem to... play the game more, practice more, obsess more this isn't that surprising.
Galas wrote: But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars...
F1 is a pretty good analogy to peoples concerns on 40k balance.
The drivers with the best cars win, the drivers with the worst cars don't even compete outside of dumb luck or others putting the better cars in the wall.
Skill does matter but only for sorting those drivers on a roughly even footing.
Sometimes I think GWs method to fixing this is to add more chance of putting the better codex in the wall via more layers of dice and bonuses, which ultimately just makes skill even less relevant as playing the odds becomes more luck and less judgement.
They say "Skill doesnt matter, only the army" but then you have the same top players ending in the tops of events with the most OP armies facing another players with the same OP armies.
By what people here is saying, the top of the big tournaments should be completely random between the players with the same TOP tier armies. But thats not what it happens.
As A.T. said, if you don't have a good enough army you aren't even competing, but once you enter the brackets were everybody is playing top tier armies then skill matters. As other poster said, top playing 40k is like poker. Luck can only get you so far if you don't know how to manage risks.
And I'll add again that 40k is a very unbalanced game and no bueno for proper competitive gaming. But I always find too pethy too crap on other people achievements.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/01 12:26:40
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
Part of the skill is also knowing what to put on the table, learning and adapting to that new army. I'm 100% sure most players wouldn't even be able to play a different army then theirs and win let alone a major GT,
I would say another issue that is related to this is there are far too many people who say they play to win then complain about certain armies or playstyles being OP or not fun, yet you listen to the people who actually get the results and they are beating those armies with the same factions as the people screaming OP, Nerf NERF.
I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people do dumb stuff like move off objectives to get LOS to shoot a unit etc.
They rarely breakdown the game into objectives you opoonenet can manage, objectives they cans score and the VP those relate to, to work out what and when they need to stop their opponent from achieving and what they need to achieve.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
Part of the skill is also knowing what to put on the table, learning and adapting to that new army. I'm 100% sure most players wouldn't even be able to play a different army then theirs and win let alone a major GT,
That might be true for relatively weak armies or those in the middle of the pack but I can tell you that if the army in question is one of the broken meta armies they 100% would be able to win or be much more likely compared to using their weak army. GW's imbalance is strong enough that just switching to a powerful army (or having your army suddenly powered up through an update) can hugely improve mediocre player's results. That doesn't mean there's no skill involved - two good players with equally broken armies playing one another will have the outcome determined by skill, theoretically. Sometimes, though, if the balance is bad enough or the game shallow enough winning can come down to just winning the roll off to go first.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
I don't believe anybody disagrees with that. But what people is saying is thats true for many, many competitive things out there were the "tools" you are using to win are just as important as your hability to use them.
And I'll say again this is not an excuse about GW bad balance, but to refute people that say theres no skill at all involved.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 14:26:13
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I think the best analogy is Magic the Gathering. They have more choices in list structure, and cater to just as many player psychographics. There are MTG players who play for fluff and build deck lists that reflect a particular lore. Likewise, the top competitive players are necessarily chasing the best decks. It's not a bad thing that there are more and less competitive choices.
Here's the thing that's true for both MTG and 40k: identifying the best lists is a serious competitive skill, where minor adjustments and fine tuning are difference makers. Executing on piloting the list is also a serious competitive skill in both games.
I think the area that people get stuck is that its much easier to analyze what already exists. It's easy to look at a tournament winning list, see why it's good, and think "I could have literally put this into Battlescribe, therefore I could have written this list". It's also easy to look at a battlereport of the top table game, see the moves the players made, understand why they made them, and think "I could have moved those models and rolled those dice." Even if you think 90% of the plays are obvious and the game played itself, the devil is in that 10%. For evidence, I point to either game's competitive scene where there are consistent top players.
Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills. It's totally fine not to be competitive, or to be competitive within bounds. It takes a severe lack of imagination or understanding to say the game isn't skill testing.
DarkHound wrote: Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills
If someone is losing because they play daemons but refuse to use three quarters of the codex then fine, or if they are playing guard and insist on nothing but static artillery regardless of the editions/events mission objectives. That's on them.
However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 16:26:56
Money buys skill. Thats why you don't see countrys like Ruanda winning many gold medal on the olympics, or pakistan, do you? Compare that with United States and the inversion the make in sports. So making some kind of distinction for 40k is a little naive. As other have said, skill matter once you reach the plateau of what the power of you list can jump you into.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 16:46:12
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
