Article about competitve 40k

[Benjamin]

Article fail, level hard.

[Mannahnin]

Counter evidence:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/511536.page#5351022

A)     Building a good list is a skill.

B)      Accurately gauging the metagame so that you take the counters and build to respond to threats which will actually be present is a skill (although there’s a large luck component as well).

C)      Piloting a list, playing the missions, adapting to terrain, dice, and matchups, are the clearest indications of skill.  These skills (or the lack thereof) are why you see 90%  of the mediocre or new players who just go out and buy a netlist fail hard at actual tournaments.  And why you see guys like Alex take lists with a mix of units which are not regarded as powerful by Teh Internetz, and consistently win against all comers. 

Conclusion: Pinsofwar looks to be your average blog looking to generate traffic and ad revenue via a controversial article in which the author, in full display of ignorance, talks out of the wrong end of his body. 

Corollary: Good blogs with good content are depressingly rare.  Forums are still superior because it’s quicker and easier to skim through the chaff to sort out the wheat. 

[mchlwllms]

Just a general question to the more experienced players, how much of winning do you believe boils down to luck?

Of course those that win constantly bring good lists to the table and play with a great knowledge of the game, but do you think that simply "being lucky" can make or break a game that you should have won/lost? Does this happen fairly often, or are these games merely flukes?

*edit typo

[Sir_Prometheus]

Quick answer:  More every day, it seems.   

Longer answer:  That is a really, really complicated question.  Not the least of which because experienced players find ways to limit luck's ability to break their plan.  Also, some armies are just going to have a lot more randomness than others.  Not just armies with weird tables like orks and chaos but generally speaking, the more dice are rolled, the more dependable things are.  (on average)

But regardless, roll enough 1's, you'll lose, enough 6's, you'll win. 

[Grimwulfe]

I see it like this

10% luck
70% skill
20% meta

[keithb]

Just a general question to the more experience players, how much of winning do you believe boils down to luck?

Of course those that win constantly bring good lists to the table and play with a great knowledge of the game, but do you thing that simply "being lucky" can make or break a game that you should have won/lost? Does this happen fairly often, or are these games merely flukes?

When the players matchup pretty even, and it is a rock meet paper scenario, then it is usually a few key choices and a few rolls that make the difference.

[Chase]

Just a general question to the more experienced players, how much of winning do you believe boils down to luck?

Of course those that win constantly bring good lists to the table and play with a great knowledge of the game, but do you think that simply "being lucky" can make or break a game that you should have won/lost? Does this happen fairly often, or are these games merely flukes?

*edit typo

Psyched you're on the boards, btw.

[Benjamin]

Just a general question to the more experienced players, how much of winning do you believe boils down to luck?

Is that who I think it is?

There are games where the dice decide the winner, but those should be rare. Skilled players take advantage of numbers, instead of being their victim.

[Loranus]

Bad dice rolls are part of the game but they don't always dictate the game. Relying on luck is a bad way to play. Murphy's Law will always happen so you build a list to minimize the effect it can have on your game. I have lost more games to a bad move on my part by just rushing myself and not taking time to consider some moves than I have to bad Dice rolls though those don't help.

[mchlwllms]

Thank you Chase, and Ben I think your guess might be correct. As to everyone's answers, thank you. I had found luck to play a somewhat important role (not a main one but one still relevant) in my games and was curious as to whether it scaled up the same way to more competitive games.

[Grand Master Steve]

I find i rely on luck more than skill. My skill is in painting not so much tactics.

[GrimSnik]

this is my first post here so i figured i'd jump in with both feet.  i don't post often to forums so please advise if this is too long. ( i assume folks will just skip it if unintersted)

i have given the idea of competition in 40K much thought in my time with the game/hobby. these are a few  things i have noticed.

* outside of the extremes of luck, a game is generally won by the player with the most wisdom. that is to say a player with an excellent memory and the best sense of timing. 40K has a lot of rules (which GW does not...um..... always.... present clearly  ). a player's ability to remember  all of the rules coupled with the skill to perceive the likely flow of the game, and lay out a consistently relevant future tactic go a long way to victory.

* there is a noticeable distance between players who have a well developed game play and those players who do not. when players from one group play against the other, the result is very rarely in question. however, when members of the same group play against each other, the result is much more often determined in the final turns.

* tournament 40K is not usually broken down between one's level of game play with the exception of qualifiers for invitational events and events clearly marked as designed for beginners. the common tournament that one sees invites players of all capacities to participate, which will, in most cases, contain an almost even mix of seasoned and non-seasoned players. inevitably, there will be pairings between these two groups.

* one gets out of the experience what one puts into it. enjoying a competitive game is easy when matched against someone of comparable skill. it can be less so when one faces an opponent that is clearly not in the same league. (unless one is sadistically or masochistically inclined  ) competitive players of any capacity are the ones who consistently learn and improve their game play. each player ultimately makes the individual choice how far along the spectrum they will go between casual play and competitive play. as with any competitive endeavor, the more one applies oneself, the sharper the capacity one will have.

[Grimwulfe]

I agree with Grimsink 100%

[andalucien]

Yes nice post GrimSnik.

I feel I am in that "intermediate" zone now where against some opponents (like new players), I can be pretty sure that I will win almost every time, regardless of lists, just by doing some basic things right and capitalizing on the other person doing some basic things wrong.   Similarly, against other players, I will lose nearly every time.   I get outmanouvered in a way that I can understand what happened decently afterwards, but not enough to stop it from happening in the first place    In both cases it leads me to believe that a skill gap will tend to be the biggest factor in who wins the game, almost every time.