PDA

View Full Version : Luck/Tactics/Army List



lack0fbettername
11-04-2007, 16:38
I got thinging the other day and just to satisfy my curriosity about it i decided to post a poll.

We have all had those games where despite doing nothing wrong we just cant buy a dice roll to save our lives, or we fail that critical LD check or whatnot. Monday night i played two games, and my keeper of secrets did next to nothing.

Game one, i tried to welcome him turns 2-4, using demonic chains he failed 5 strait 4+ rolls, then he finaly came in. He took 2 wounds from assault cannon/heavy bolter fire before he got in combat with a tatical squad. Made 5 attacks, missed on 4 of them, and the one he hit with rolled to wound a 1. Killed 0 Marines. Died that turn to normal marines (powerfist didnt get to swing).

Game two he comes out right when i want him too. Wind of chaos & kills 4 marines, charges, kills 3 more. They hold. He gets charged by and assult squad & killed. In Game #2, he only passed 1 inv. save, (failed 4 of 5, 4+ rolls)

Ether of these games having him living or preforming better would have changed the outcome of the game.

I guess you could call it a run of bad luck, (or whatever) but over the past 10 or so games i would guess i have been making anywhere from 33%-50% of my power armour saves.

So i ask whats the most important thing in 40K?

Luck, Skill or army list composition.

I didnt add "a combination of all of the above" in the poll because it would seam to be the obvious answer.

xibo
11-04-2007, 17:12
Good tactics/strategies won't win you a game vs. an average player in this game, although bad ones can lose it

Army Lists are everything, although dicing ten ones in a row for terminators armour saves might also cost you the game... and having 50 conscripts hit and wound 100 times will devestate everything, too. So I voted (dicing)luck

Bloodknight
11-04-2007, 17:19
If I had to express my experience in percentile numbers: 15 Luck, 25 Tactics and 60 Armylist. At least...

Joewrightgm
11-04-2007, 17:22
I think Luck; I've said this once before: the Dice Gods Giveth, and the Dice Gods Taketh Away

yankeeboy
11-04-2007, 17:32
Army list is key.

"Luck" is fickle,and frankly, doesn't really make that much of a difference when you look at your army's performance over a large number of games, hence statistics. Again, it's what's the most important thing in 40K, and 40K isn't limited to isolated games.

Army list, however, makes a huge difference in EVERY game. A crappy army list will sink you. If you find that your army seems to consistantly fair poorly, or outright lose, it's almost always attributable to a weak list.

I've always been a believer that an airtight, hard as nails list will always perform well. When I ran my Emperor's Children army (possibly the toughest list I ever fielded), I played a large variety of opponents and army types, yet only lost twice, drew once, and won well over fifty games. I haven't had the same level of success with my Eldar (although I have only played a dozen games with them thus far). I have no doubt that it's attributable to this Eldar army's list being a bit weaker than the Slaanesh one was.

Zerosoul
11-04-2007, 17:38
I think my eyeroll smiley is going to break from overuse this week.

Anybody who says that army list isn't important has clearly lost their mind. It's just as crucial as it is in any other wargame. Even the best player would struggle to win with a bunch of random units slapped together with no thought to how they work together.

However.

Anyone who says that tactics isn't important needs to play less Seek and Destroy. 40K is at its worst when it's a straight-up slugfest with no thought to objectives and for some reason it seems like it's the default mode of play. A Seek and Destroy can be fun every once in a while, but what makes 40K enjoyable is objectives. Having to fight for objectives(especially in games like Recon) is where the tactics part comes in. Anybody can take 6 las/plas squads and have a shootout. Yawn. Play Yahtzee rather than do that, if you ask me. That requires no thought except prioritizing targets. Add in objectives and you have to worry about positioning, making sure your units remain scoring yet can deal enough damage to knock your opponents' units below scoring, et cetera et cetera. So, if yo'ure talking Seek and Destroy, tactics don't mean a lot. If you're talking any other game type, then tactics are just as crucial as army choice.

fenrisbrit
11-04-2007, 17:50
40K is at its worst when it's a straight-up slugfest with no thought to objectives and for some reason it seems like it's the default mode of play.

Agree. I voted for army lists but tactics comes a close 2nd if being done properly. !st rule of warfare is 'select and maintain the aim' - i.e figure out the objective and apply your army list to achieving it. I know of some people who object to the turn six SMF to grab table quarters or loot counters or whatever but it is all in the tactics to know what scores and when to apply it.

lack0fbettername
11-04-2007, 18:17
I completely agree with what you say zerosoul, and i would say that all are necersarry to win consistanly. Thus why i didnt include a 4th option for "all of the above".

I would also vote for army list. As it is the probabaly the hardest thing to win without.

Darkhorse
11-04-2007, 18:29
Luck is by its nature fickle, and will even itself out overall, afte all where there is a winner there is also a loser.

Armylist; those who rely on armylists to win games aren't the best players either from a tactical point of view or in terms of being enjoyable to play against. I prefer a fairly generic armylist that fits the fluff than one that seeks glory and disregards the background.
You do see lists that are just bereft of character with a somewhat random assortment of units that the player, (usually under 16) thinks will win him the game just by placing them on the table.
A theme for an armylist is essential to me, I'll play around with the way units are armed or otherwise equiped but I won't compromise a theme.

I will go for tactics being the deciding factor, as I've seen surprise manouevers being far more effective than the armylist they're playing.

Huw_Dawson
11-04-2007, 18:39
All three in equal measure. Provided your not a player that likes to eradicate tactics from their games by only ever playing with a gunline. Hence why you never play Seek and Destroy against someone like this - strategic terrain placements and a little luck will win you a cleanse game every time. :)

- Huw

PS: Army list alone is inferior to Army list and Tactics.

stjohn70
11-04-2007, 19:21
I voted for Tactics... but I kind of disagree with that as well.

The single largest factor I have found in winning/losing games, is the person that makes the fewest mistakes. Althuogh this could be argued under the heading of tactics, I think it's big enough to merit its own category.

I have never seen a game where both sides played without flaw - and always has it had a large contributing factor in the game.

My order:
1 - make fewer mistakes (or cause your opponent to make them)
2 - tactics 1: causing your opponent to react to you
3 - blind, stinking, doo-dah luck
4 - tactics 2: reacting properly to your opponents actions
5 - army construction... while least important in the game, this is still your foundation

Democratus
11-04-2007, 19:24
Luck dominates a game that uses a D6 for the prime randomizer. A 16.6% chance for the most remote possibility (rend, glancing kill, fail to wound) is far too large.

In the majority of tournament games I've seen, a bought of good/bad luck has been the deciding factor in victory.

Lord Balian
11-04-2007, 21:23
Well the truist answer is all three are important to the game and part of the game.

I voted tactics though. Sure a good list is important and can make a game a lot easier, but if you think about it, if you use bad tactics with that awesome list, you're probably going to loose.

Luck can make or break a game with a great list, or a crappy list. I have seen bad luck loose a game for a guy that had a superior list and great tactics, but the dice were not allowing his great tactics to actually work. And the funny thing about luck, and the dice, it's not just for yourself, but the dice luck of the other person has an effect as well.

I have played a game with an assault army, vs a very shooty army. When we deployed I knew he was probably going to win, because I would have to run across the table taking all those shots. Regardless of my tactics I had to get in close. Well at first turn he popped my two long range heavy weapons. Good tactics on his part, with some good rolls. Well that is where the dice stopped being in his favor. I ran across the table the next two turns and maybe took 1/4 losses. His dice were just not getting wounds on me, and the few wounds he would get I was making all my saves. The only things that were really killing my guys were weapons I could not roll a save for.

Hmm so maybe Luck is actualy the most important. Because bad luck can loose a game with a great list AND great tactics. If you can't wound it doesn't matter what you have in your army. On the other side of things, great dice luck, either good rolls for you or bad rolls for the other person, can win a game with a crappy list and poor tactics.
[dice0][dice1][dice2]

Stella Cadente
11-04-2007, 21:38
All are equally important

Ravenous
11-04-2007, 21:48
In order of importance.
Army List
Tactics
Luck

Luck is a non issue, an army list can be built so that the most rotten luck can do avoided or do nominal damage.

Tactics is just knowledge of what do to at the right time, without a good list your tactics will be flawed to its weaknesses.

Army lists is the key because you can cover your weakness and build tactics around it, taking useless options and units will just get you killed.

If you're going to a gunfight you can either bring a knife, a gun or bring bombs and rig the area ahead of time.

If however you want to bring fluff into the picture then you must do what you can within your own limits.

Essentially they are all one side of a triangle without 1 it will collapse into itself.

northoceanbeach
11-04-2007, 21:50
I wanted to vote for both tactics and army list, I think they are the two major factors, but I couldn't so I voted tactics.

the_raptor
11-04-2007, 22:00
Luck is a non issue, an army list can be built so that the most rotten luck can do avoided or do nominal damage.

You know not of what you speak. How about failing 90% of power armour saves, and rolling 1's when trying to use lascannons or plasma guns (my dice loathe single shot high strength weapons)? There is nothing you can do to stop rotten luck. At best you can mitigate rolling a bit below average, by taking redundant units.

But truly bad luck will wipe out even the best general.

Kahadras
11-04-2007, 22:05
IMO army list trumps both tactics and luck. Good tactics is exceedingly unlikely to save you if your opponant is fielding an Iron Warrior 4 pie plate, min/maxed army o' doom. Good tactics combined with good luck can level the playing field to some extent (especialy if the person who is using the 'competitive' army isn't a good tactician) but you are still looking at being fortunate to pull off a draw.

Kahadras

lack0fbettername
11-04-2007, 22:07
Essentially they are all one side of a triangle without 1 it will collapse into itself.

THis is mostly my thoughts, which is exactly why i didnt include "all 3" in my poll. I wanted to see which people though was the most important.

If i were to priotize them though it would probabaly be
LIST
LUCK
TATICS

golembane
11-04-2007, 22:22
I went with Army list. Doesn't matter how great of tactics you have, if you have alot of high powered, low number shots an your enemy is a swarm force, he'll overrun you. If you have alot of low powered high number of shots, vehicles/heavy infantry will wreck havok since they won't be taken down.

Have to combine the two to have any chance at all in the first place of winning, next in line would be tactics. Get the force that can handle tanks, swarms, heavy infantry *then* play wisely and choose targets appropriately.

That's how I look at it at least.

GIKvack
11-04-2007, 22:58
I'm horrified by the number of people who think Luck is the most important... all there posts seem to go "this one time...". Take a class in statistics, things like that are bound to happen at some point, but how about the 5,000 games?? Dice always average out, maybe not in that one specific game, but they do... Those "once upon a time" things have happened to me, but they are SO rare.

In a non-internet world I would consider Tactics and Army lists equal in impotents. But with forums (such as this one), magazines, and other articles people can get help in making good lists. Which iron's out (hopefully) at least some of there major problems. This has helped make the average list better, and games more on equal terms now.

And so I have to vote tactics, itís where the hardest choices have to be made under the most pressure (that this game can provide). Itís where your ability to shine as a commander shows up.

Look at all the "best" armies out there right now, there tactically flexible, and the same people seem to win tournaments with these armies. The winning lists have common components showing that your army list does matter. BUT the same people showing up with these lists (and not just a different person with the same list) show how tactics are winning the games for them in the end, totally the army list, and deffinently not luck (or the winners would be a lot more random).

For my percentages I would say:
Strategy: 55%
Tactics: 40%
Luck: 5%

Ravenous
11-04-2007, 23:19
You know not of what you speak. How about failing 90% of power armour saves, and rolling 1's when trying to use lascannons or plasma guns (my dice loathe single shot high strength weapons)? There is nothing you can do to stop rotten luck. At best you can mitigate rolling a bit below average, by taking redundant units.

But truly bad luck will wipe out even the best general.

The dice gods are vile ones and pick no favourites.

CDF (critical dice failure) happens from time to time but in the end they even out, and if they dont you have inferior dice and should invest in some that arent full of bubbles and weigthed funny.

Wolflord Havoc
11-04-2007, 23:37
Okay obviously Army list is important but sometimes you find that your Army list is totally outmatched but your opponets due to a quirk of terrain or mission etc or simply because the other army list can exploit the weaknesses in yours...

Okay so this established why have I voted for tactics.

Its simple - If you can deploy your army in such a way that it gives your army the advantage.

Several examples of this are:-

Setting up in such a fashion that allows most of your army to fight less than half of his.

Convinving your opponent into thinking you are doing one thing and do another - i.e Hidden refuse flank - place all your fast units on one side of the DZ and in the first turn move them to the other side or middle.

A great example that happened last year during a doubles tournament was that 2 of our opponents had all infiltrating chaos armies.

In both cases cunning use of our kroot and Stealth team forced them to deploy into corners etc rather than were they wanted to be and they were subsequantly shoot to bits.

Then their are tactics in the game - what is it in the other guys army that is important to his game plan - blow it away/nullify it ASAP.

Is his army relying on HTH then don't let them slaughter a unit of yours in such a way as to let them massacre into your army.

Or vice versa - keeping your HTH units intact

Its all Tactics.

Arriving with the best force list does not = victory

sigur
11-04-2007, 23:39
Sure, luck always plays an important role and unlucky dice can ruin your game.

Still, I voted for army lists because of the lack of options you have in-game reduce using different tactics to a minimum which automatically makes army choice incredibly important. This also gets enforced by the "all or nothing" AP system which regulates that this and this weapons is "useless" against many armies while another one excels.

Ianos
12-04-2007, 08:56
To me it is very simple actually. All good players know how to make good army lists that can deal with any threat and mission. That is the basis but not the deciding winning factor, it' s just that without it you are going nowhere. Once that has been established it's all about strategic planning and fluid tactics, the ability to adapt to the mission and throw the enemy off balance is the core aspect of the game. And of course, luck plays its role but when one sees the big picture, dice rolls even out and again dice is somwething you can adapt from time to time.

Sekhmet
12-04-2007, 09:09
Luck's the most important because with the worst list and tactics against the best player with a powergaming list custom made to beat you, if you're super lucky you'll still win.

Corax
12-04-2007, 09:38
I believe that answer to this question is yes. By which I mean that all three are important to varying degrees. Army List is enormously important as we all know that some units are better than others, and some units are better suited to certain roles than others. This is where tactics comes into play - knowing what to use when and where. Finally, luck can sink even the best army if the dice gods are against you. I don't really think you can put figures on it, especially as 'luck' is such an indeterminate factor - in one game, it will have little influence, and in the next it will turn the game. I would suggest however, that Army List is the single most important factor.

Sekhmet
12-04-2007, 09:51
Basically, I think it all boils down to experience..

Ianos
12-04-2007, 11:41
Experience can be the most useless thing in life, in order acquire it you have already have mishaps. You will probably not stumble upon the exact same situation again and even if you do it is not so much the past experience that will assist you but the formulation of principles.

The wise warrior does not direct his actions according to experience, but rather by encompassing all around him under the principles of battle. Those who follow the principles will not succumb to any enemy be it their first battle ever or their last after a thousand wars.

PapaNurgle
12-04-2007, 12:55
Luck wins games.
Good wins championships.

So, if you're talking a 1-off game, "luck" becomes more important.

If you talk about performance over a period of time, tactics are most important (imho).

Taken to the extremes, army lists are important, but given that if you take a more or less take all comers list, and not an extreme list, tactics are what are important.

Of course, there are other things that influence the outcome of a game - mission, terrain, setting etc.

Luck: Sure, you can win or lose a game based on luck. But you don't see people who win multiple tournaments or who are at the top of their league standings say, "I get lucky every game." Doesn't happen - goes back to the statistics and odds over time. So luck is an influence in a single game, but not the biggest contributor to the eventual winner.

Army list: Anybody know "that guy?" The one who breaks out a new army list, everyone laughs, and he wins all sorts of games with it - then everyone copies him but doesn't do quite as well? Are there lists that are more effective at certain missions? Sure. But the strength of those same lists can be mitigated by

Tactics: A good player with an average army list will beat an average player with an over the top army list most times. Why? Because good players understand the strengths of their armies and the weaknesses of their opponents and work to match the two up.

All that said, one large contributing factor is scenario played. If you play a "kill 'em all" type of scenario then army list becomes a bigger factor. Where I play, (mostly in tournaments due to time constraints), we generally have primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives with bonus points available as well. (www.adepticon.org has a list of a bunch of our recent scenarios). These scenarios are crafted to reduce the effect of uber lists and create a challenging environment where tactics supercede all.

Just my .02.

Giltharin
12-04-2007, 13:03
Tactics is the one, if really we have to choose a leading factor.

IMHO it leads the army selection as well, for when you choose what you bring you're choosing how to play to an extent.

Cheers
Giltharin

Sekhmet
12-04-2007, 13:05
10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will...

Da Boyzz
12-04-2007, 13:33
Its gotta be army list, cause i know my orks will find it bloody difficult against a very shooty tau.
There are many examples of cheese list. These are the game winners, not the tactics the owner uses.

Kahadras
12-04-2007, 13:37
Personaly I always find that luck tends to balance out. I've only seen a couple of games where luck has solely decided the outcome of the game. Best example; three lictors vs fourteen Nurgle Terminators. End result = 14 Dead Terminators.

Kahadras

Gen.Steiner
12-04-2007, 14:57
Luck. :evilgrin:

Napoleon said it best, and, to paraphrase him: "The greatest quality a general can have is luck."

The best army list and the best tactics will not win you a game if your luck is against you.

That said, having the best army and the best tactics help a lot. :p

Democratus
12-04-2007, 15:23
I'm horrified by the number of people who think Luck is the most important... all there posts seem to go "this one time...". Take a class in statistics, things like that are bound to happen at some point, but how about the 5,000 games?? Dice always average out, maybe not in that one specific game, but they do... Those "once upon a time" things have happened to me, but they are SO rare.


As soon as I meet someone who has played 5,000 games I will ask them. But since this imaginary person doesn't exist in my home city it is irrelevent.

Every battle you play is "this one time...". Anyone who has studied statistics would know that if you flip a coin and get "tails" 50 times in a row - the odds of getting "tails" on the next flip is still 50%.

Thus, in any given battle - luck is an overriding concern. As Gen.Steiner pointed out, even Napoleon acknowleged that luck is the most important consideration for a general. If there's anyone here who can convince me that they are a better tactician than Napoleon - then I'll concede the issue.

GIKvack
14-04-2007, 23:29
Ok fine, not 5,000 games (sorry for you taking it so serious), how about 100 (but really 10+ would do fine). And yes your next flip of the coin is still a 50/50 chance of it coming up one side or the other, BUT 40k games arenít based around 1 coin flip (if they where then yes luck would play a bigger roll since tactics/army lists would be useless).

They are based around hundreds of dice rolls (I play IG so I do in all seriousness [can't let you freak out to the big number] roll hundreds of dice a game). And since your win loss ratio and tournament standings are based on these games, you end up rolling thousands of dice. And those do average out.

As for historical figures some how proving your argument, I will now place several Napoleon Quotes:

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- (This is tactics) [You can't interrupt luck]

"One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority."
- (This is tactics) [You can't change luck]

"The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies."
- (This is tactics) [You can't control luck]

"If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots."
- (Points to Preparation, for us this is an Army List) [You can't avoid luck]

These quotes are not here to insult Gen.Steiner OR Democratus (I like the name). Itís just to prove a point, and people seem to like Napoleon. Besides he won his battles with superior tactics (for his time). If I was ever under the command of a general who's tactics was "If were lucky" I would quickly become a deserter, because he's probably bound to loose, and if I'm lucky :p Iíll get away and live a wonderful life.

BloodiedSword
15-04-2007, 01:23
I voted for army list, partly because I think that's the most important factor and partly because I'm not 100% sure what this so called "Tatics" is ;)

The reason I say this is because you can create army lists which are 100% incapable of winning against others, even played by a 5 year old with no grasp of tactics, and literally every dice roll going horrendously wrong.

To take the most extreme example to illustrate - say player 1 takes an IG army consisting entirely of basic, un-upgraded Guardsmen, and player 2 takes an army consisting entirely of vehicles, or infantry in vehicles.

No amount of tactics on player 1's behalf will get him a win in this situation. No amount of luck on either side (good luck for player 1, bad luck for player 2) can allow player 1 to win. It's just not possible.

However, any amount of poor tactics can be made up for (in theory at least) by sheer dumb luck. For example, those Marines standing out in the open just not moving might just happen to take no damage at all while the opposition take a casualty from Gets Hot.

Any amount of abysmal dice rolling can be made up for (in theory at least) by brilliant tactics (insofar as such a concept exists in 40k). For example, even if a player knew he would be hit by every shot, be wounded by every hit and fail every save, he could still win a game potentially just by denying his opponent the opportunities to fire, assault, and win by taking the objectives.

So army list it is.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
15-04-2007, 01:43
To take the most extreme example to illustrate - say player 1 takes an IG army consisting entirely of basic, un-upgraded Guardsmen, and player 2 takes an army consisting entirely of vehicles, or infantry in vehicles.

No amount of tactics on player 1's behalf will get him a win in this situation. No amount of luck on either side (good luck for player 1, bad luck for player 2) can allow player 1 to win. It's just not possible.
you forgot the most important thing: the mission. :p

a S3 army can beat an AV10+ enemy, despite the fact that they cant actually hurt them. Dangerous Terrain Tests (Difficult Terrain) and Reserves rolls (Escallation) can both score VPs for the weaker army, without them ever needing to fire a shot - they can also stop the stronger army from achieving mission objectives.

its not likely, but its definately possible. :D

~ Tim

Corporal Chaos
15-04-2007, 05:12
It is all luck as far as I am concerned. Tactics he;p, plans last until first contact, Comp, lucky choices or favorite you pick. Just dumb luck is all. It is a game afterall.
Have fun![dice0]

GIKvack
15-04-2007, 05:49
@ Lord Malek The Red Knight: The sir, is a great point.

@ Corporal Chaos: No no no, Your Strategy won't survive first contact. Tactics are what you do to make up for that... there the stuff that gets your @$$ out of the fire when all your pre-planing and army list ideas go to the can.

Eldoriath
15-04-2007, 14:36
I say tactics. I have seen a good list loose against a list that against that army was bad.
If you cant use your units it doesn't really matter how good the armylist is, and luck isn't reliable and will eventually even out.

max the dog
15-04-2007, 16:28
Luck can change things but over the long term it won't make up for good tactics and good army list selection. What appears to be luck can actually be great use of tactics, terrain and army capabilities. I've had opponents declare me incredibly lucky because I've had my genestealers roll 10+ rends then massacre into another unit to do it again. Usually it's because I managed to get 30+ of them into close combat vrs one unit at a time. With that many genestealers it's kind of hard not to roll 10+ rends. Getting that many genestealers into close combat isn't easy and luck does play a roll but so does use of use of terrain, meat shields, extended carapace, etc.....
Tactics and army selection makes luck.

Marked_by_chaos
15-04-2007, 16:36
Army list by a mile.

The restrictive ruleset and potential for beardy army list selection marginalise genuine tactical prowess as a major factor.

40k and lotr are comfortably the least tactical games in the GW repertoire.

Having said that if the style of the dark angels codex is adopted for the other codexes and marines get a redux version nerfing trait abuse and preventing min-maxing the game will become considerably more tactical as horribly abusive 1st turn armies of death are removed.

GIKvack
15-04-2007, 18:51
Luck can change things but over the long term it won't make up for good tactics and good army list selection. What appears to be luck can actually be great use of tactics, terrain and army capabilities. I've had opponents declare me incredibly lucky because I've had my genestealers roll 10+ rends then massacre into another unit to do it again. Usually it's because I managed to get 30+ of them into close combat vrs one unit at a time. With that many genestealers it's kind of hard not to roll 10+ rends. Getting that many genestealers into close combat isn't easy and luck does play a roll but so does use of use of terrain, meat shields, extended carapace, etc.....
Tactics and army selection makes luck.

This brings up a good point in my mind, Luck only has a chance to happen if you use tactics to allow it to happen. 10+ rends my seems like luck, but if you have 60+ attacks, its only average, and to get these you had to use tactics to get there.

Corrupt
16-04-2007, 13:42
Tactics by far.
My favoured example
Guard Light Infantry (Grenade Launchers and Sniper Rifles, 1 Missile Launcher in my veterans) vs Godzilla List who apart from the rippers was entirely T7.
This meant in my army I had
3 Sniper Rifles, 4 Grenade Launchers, 4 Bolters, 3 Bolt Pistols 1 Missile Launcher and 1 Heavy Bolter that could wound his stuff. Oh and 2 Power Fists in my Command Squad
All had 3+ Saves too.
By being clever and concentrating my fire I was able to claw a minor victory. Basically when he got to melee, leg it away from the area at top speed so when the squad died(after str 3 bayonets failed to scratch the big beasty) it was shot to pieces.
If he got into melee they were invincible, lasguns couldnt scratch it, neither could hellguns.

phindar
16-04-2007, 16:38
I assume (I am guessing but could be wrong) that most of the people who voted for tactics over army list play with MEQ armies. In such armies there's little difference with one list and another. Most units are quite capable of being multiporpose. And, in harsh words, the armies are already designed for them (while not quite, at least mostly).

Other armies are much more affected by the composition. Of course, to them, army lists would be the most important.

Most of the ones who said luck don't know anything about statistics or anything about tactics. You can not go to a battle "wishing the dice to win it for you". Luck can lose you a cc, a unit, a decisive round but not a game. And losing one of those, can sometimes ruin (or even lose) a game. Yes, your Demon prince can be defeated by a heroic conscript with a lucky/unlucky roll. But that's not luck. That's the 1 in 1234323425 chance that it will happen. Play 1234323425 games and it'll happen again :D

kaimarion
16-04-2007, 16:44
Its a bit of all 3 but tatics dictate what happens
i.e your guard choose to assualt a fex
OR
assualt shooty gaunts
but the dice can decide what happens!

Gen.Steiner
16-04-2007, 17:13
Most of the ones who said luck don't know anything about statistics ... that's not luck. That's the 1 in 1234323425 chance that it will happen. Play 1234323425 games and it'll happen again :D

And neither do you. :p Play 1234323425 games and EACH GAME has the same 1/1234323425 chance of it happening. It could happen every single game, or never. It's randomised, you see. ;) The normal distribution curve, of course, has other things to say about that, but in theory it's perfectly possible to go through a game and roll nothing but sixes.

Lord Cook
16-04-2007, 18:32
And neither do you. :p Play 1234323425 games and EACH GAME has the same 1/1234323425 chance of it happening. It could happen every single game, or never. It's randomised, you see. ;) The normal distribution curve, of course, has other things to say about that, but in theory it's perfectly possible to go through a game and roll nothing but sixes.

He speaks the truth. I know for a fact I have gone through an entire game and rolled almost nothing except 1s for my plasma fire. The 6s take their time, lay back, and choose to make a stunning, climactic entrance just when one of my squads has just suffered 25% casualties. They like to make a show of it you see. Normally I would add a smiley here, but that would indicate a joke, and sadly this actually happens.


.

phindar
16-04-2007, 18:50
Exactly... that could have ruined your turn, your unit even your game. But it won't happen every game. So you can not say it is the most important thing for ALL games.

Also, taking so many plasmas is army composition. You know the risk of plasma. If you had taken a different weapon (or less plasmas or a mix) you would have avoided such risk. So, army composition is there too.

And if you expected that unit to make a difference, maybe tactics are there too. You can seldom win a game with plasmas, right?

Lord Cook
16-04-2007, 19:13
Luck evens out over time. Usually it comes in turns, some turns being remarkably bad and others pleasantly fortunate. A mix of army list and tactics is the most crucial thing to achieve.


.

Getz
17-04-2007, 23:47
As Gen.Steiner pointed out, even Napoleon acknowleged that luck is the most important consideration for a general. If there's anyone here who can convince me that they are a better tactician than Napoleon - then I'll concede the issue.

Ah, but you've stripped the quote from it's context - Napoleon was answering some particularly anal question about what facetof command he most valued in his generals. He wasn't saying that luck is more important than skill, but rather that you can learn to be a good general, but you cannot learn to be lucky...


I assume (I am guessing but could be wrong) that most of the people who voted for tactics over army list play with MEQ armies. In such armies there's little difference with one list and another. Most units are quite capable of being multiporpose. And, in harsh words, the armies are already designed for them (while not quite, at least mostly).

Other armies are much more affected by the composition. Of course, to them, army lists would be the most important.


On the Contrary. I voted for Tactics and I play pretty much exclusively with GEQ armies. Why did I vote tactics? Because using an Codex which is widely considered to be at best only above average (Imperial Guard) and playing with armies that are at least as fluff oriented as competitive, I can consistently beat all manner of other army types, including some of the brutal builds like 4 Pie Plate IW and Assault Cannon spam.

How so? Because the people I am playing may have "better" lists than me, but I am a better tactician (sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I can't think of a nicer way of putting it).

OK, fair enough - a good list is a good list, and a good player is a good player - but give a bad player a good list and a good player a bad list and then pitch them up against one another and I'm prepared to bet serious money that the Good player will win out most often - his losses being down to luck, which is a random factor that effects everyone more or less equally.

GIKvack
18-04-2007, 02:22
I assume (I am guessing but could be wrong) that most of the people who voted for tactics over army list play with MEQ armies. In such armies there's little difference with one list and another. Most units are quite capable of being multiporpose. And, in harsh words, the armies are already designed for them (while not quite, at least mostly).
I'm the same as Getz, I only play GEQ armies. I have a personal grudge to beat MEQ's with GEQ's... an in this thread you may notice I'm a strongly in the favor of Tactics.

lack0fbettername
18-04-2007, 03:17
GIKvack, i just saw your signature. I dig it, not sure where abouts you are. Not many people here in the states have seen that, its by far and away my most favorite TV show.

Iron Father
18-04-2007, 04:50
Personally, I feel its luck. I've been told by everyone that I field a solid list, but honestly I cant roll for shiggles. I field 7 Ass cannons and will go a qhole game and not score a single rending hit. In combat ive dubbed "The Powerfist Curse" when attacking with a PF, i rarely hit, and when i do hit, i fail to wound. my rolling is crap

Vaktathi
18-04-2007, 05:06
I'm going to have to go with Army List.

My reasoning behind this is because if you design a retarted army list, no matter what tactics you use you will get slaughtered. A Witch Hunters army made primarily of Repentia and Penitent Engines probably wont do too well against a gunline guard army with 24 heavy weapons, 150 infantry, and 3 ordnance cannons. The list *does* matter.


You need a decent list before tactics can come into play. Your army list is the tool, your tactics is how you employ your tool. Yes tactics are important, but if you bring the wrong tool, no matter how you use it, it wont work properly. Where tactics come into play is when two opponents with decent army lists come together.

Luck is definitly a factor as well (I rolled 5 ones for 3 termi's and a termi lord my last game against eldar out of 12 saves against shooting...). It *can* determine the game if one rolls badly, but more often than not it wont. So its a definite factor but not the deciding one usually.

so my vote goes to Army List.