Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:40 pm
by Kelthahir
Good general...because, when you win, you have something to be proud of. When you win just out of Luck...well ;)

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:05 am
by Lethalis
I prefer to be good enough to notice my mistakes, rather than have them covered up by luck so that I'll make the same mistakes again next time when the dice are less nice.

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:00 am
by Dreadlord taylindril
Both would be nice.
But as we can not relly on luck all the time; I would have to say skill.

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:17 pm
by Nagathi
I'd say luck. As I see it, it is more important to roll well than to have a solid plan. With luck, even a bad plan will work. Without luck, even the best of tactical geniouses will lose.

~ Naggie

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:38 pm
by Faerthurir
aww, come on. seriously?

relying on luck is a severe weakness, even if you're the most severely unlucky person on the planet you can still make a damn good account of yourself if you know what you're doing. especially nowadays that the game is more objective based.

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:43 pm
by Nagathi
I didn't say that you should rely on it. Mainly because you can't rely on something like luck. But as the question is asked, I feel luck is more important and will get you further.

And I doubt your second statement. If a guy rolls constant 1s for all his attacks and saves, and constant 6s for tests, he's screwed whatever he does.

~ Naggie

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:20 pm
by Arquinsiel
Have you considered the possibility that a good general will be able to avoid combats almost entirely if he feels the need?

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:25 pm
by Nagathi
He can avoid combats (give or take, depending on what army and what composition), but he can't avoid taking casualties. And without causing any casualties to the enemy while taking some himself, it's pretty much impossible to win.

And if you intend to reply with "objectivities makes casualties less important", I can retort by saying that to be able to claim objectives, one reduces his/her abailities to avoid combat.

~ Naggie

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:35 pm
by Arquinsiel
I believe Faerthurir was thinking in 40k points there, but given that this game has static combat resolution, it is possible to lose huge numbers of troops and still win combat via sheer numbers and enthusiastic flag waving. And given that your example of "bad luck" is the absolute extreme of the possibility spectrum... it doesn't really account for luck minimising effects such as hatred. And yes, this does depend on what kind of an army you have picked, but picking the right army is the first step towards being a good general.

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:37 pm
by Faerthurir
i resent that, and know many people who are able to engineer combats so that even if they fail to cause a single would, still win combat and auto-break their opponents. it's not that hard.

i'm not saying luck doesn't help, but i've won more than my fair share of battles where the dice have been against me.also, army composition falls under, in my opinion, being a good general.