There are two ways to win...which do you think is better?

I think a bit of both. While good maneuvering and clever tactics can win you a game, without a bit of luck, you'll never win a game at all.

While luck is needed for all the rolls you need to perform in warhammer, good maneuvering, tactics etc; can cover you and so less luck is needed.

Basically I agree with Khel, but I tend towards saying that being a good general is a little more important than being a lucky one. This is because you can always rely on being a good general (unless you're hungover and tired and have a blackout... but then chances are you won't be playing warhammer anyway). You can never rely in being lucky, on the other hand and as Khel said - to an extent you can make up for bad luck with your skill (otherwise you may as well play poker wearing masks... that'd be about the same).

On the other hand, you can always be caught off guard by bad luck, no matter how good a general you are. I remember how I beat the tactically most skilled DE player in my store because his anointed didn't kill a single one of my cold one knights, broke and allowed my five knights to charge his unit of ten cold one knights and wipe them out...

HUZZAH!

I guess you have never been to the second day of a GT?
Sometimes it's even nice to notice the freshness of the bit of air surrounding you

On topic: a good general is better to be in the long run, as the lucky player will even out anyway

Tricky question. There's no such thing as luck, but I don't approve of calling people 'good generals.'

Still, the best you can do is play well and hope the dice don't mess things up. It's a very random game, and there's nothing to be done about that.

Well there is that famous quote by Napoleon Bonaparte about lucky generals

Both ideally. Being good is more rewarding but being lucky often tips things

A good general is able to reduce the luck into a little corner. It's still there, but for a minimal part and when jinx hits, only sometimes it can change the wave of the battle.

Then it's better to be known as a brilliant but unlucky tactician than a blessed by luck with no skills.

you can lose with a good tactic but you'll never win with a bad one.

luck is needed for sure, but being skilled is more importent.

I've had games where every dice roll I made resulted in below average results and my opponant rolled normally to well. In all cases I've managed to swing a draw thanks to knowing how to use the units I had chosen. If I'd have some good luck instead of basic know-how I would probably have won those battles by a significant margin.

You can beat a good player but you can't beat a lucky one.

same as khel really but i voted for luck - because as has been said before if your dice shaft you then you lose the game - regardless of how well you play.

So luck gets the vote - but id probably prefer to be a good player than a lucky one

A lucky general can become a good general but a good general not a lucky one otherwise he would be allready a lucky general.

"Luck is the residue of design"

I believe luck matters to an extent but for the most part great generalship > luck.

-Rex

Personally I belive to an extent you can make your own luck with good judgement calls and tatics

a few examples Ive used might be,

CoK or CoC need to charge next turn a unit maybe locked in combat, either you place it ready to charge or you place it 3 " away to charge, next turn you can rely on luck if you call it that you dont fail that stupid test or you roll and pass or fail you hit your target.

witch elfs look to charge chaos warriors, with luck a front of 5 with F/C will push 16 poisoned attacks and warriors will fail saves you could and way well win combat. if luck is not on your side you got a pile of dead witch elfs.

other option might be line up the charge in the flank with CoK you are looking at a much better chance of not only breaking the unit but not having any attacks back at you due to the 'chances'

another example has happened to me,

I have a block of Longbeards at 20 strong static res of 6. front charge by 9 brets, after all thier high strenght attacks they still lose combat and break an unlucky general? or a lucky dwarf player? yet the same block of dwarfs is hit in the flank by 2 charriots and 1 in the front (coldone carriots) im looking at snake eyes or flee due to fear, lucky or good general?

What in trying to say is at times lady luck will smile and at times she frowns but if due to tatics and good generalship you make her smile when she can frown lady luck has little say.

ever rolled killing blow on those war machine crews from your executioners? did you need KB? no but lady luck said you got it..

hope you see where im coming from.

Read Sig

Im afraid no matter how skilful you are, those 1's and 6's can always appear at the wrong times. And without luck they be appearing too often.

"ok so my COC fails to kill anything and you destroy it in return?"

In sports, to win a championship you have to be lucky and good.

so can I vote for both...?

Being better means you're more consistent, which is better than being lucky overall. Though if you're lucky enought to pass every test in the game, then you'll always win so it becomes a matter of your definition of better.

I agree 1 over 6's is not good.

If you need a 6 to do the job send in 3 charriots and you have your 6 on a bad roll.

to send in 3 charriots will take a a good general to possition his army in a way to set the trap a lucky general might stumble across that possition.

Fortes fortuna adiuvat?

Hey, I say, if you have bad luck, you can blame your losses on luck. If you have bad skills, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Besides, luck is much more flashy.

For me - being good general over lucky definitly. I play warhammer for satisfaction of winning, but also - or even more - pleasure of the game itself. Massacred my buddy's WE last week, but don't feel like it was a good game - not that any of us played unfair; simply 90% of the outcome came from my great luck and his bad luck. It was very frustrating for him and unsatidfcationary for me, as none of us felt that this outcome had anything to do with our skills.

So a good game for me is where luck is more or less evened out. And then I would still have more satisfaction in winning if I had odds a bit against me.

I would rather be lucky every day of the week!

If my dice are hot I am going to win no matter how bad of decisions I make.

That being said that kind of luck usually never happens so its better off having some skill and knowing the rules.

- A good general can win even when he is unlucky,
-If you rely on luck you will probably find you win 50% of your games.
No One can be 'lucky' as it always evens out in the long run.

Skill can be gained, luck can't so I'd rather start out lucky.

some one said something to me when we was talking about Probability

Adversity reveals your Genius while Good fortune conceals your incompotence