The concept of risk management is so important. I played an opponent who was throwing an absolute fit that his attempt to blow my tank up failed. I just asked him “how likely do you think it was going to be to work out like that?” He thought it was basically a coin toss. That he was just unlucky. Having to explain to him that it was a coin toss to hit. Then another only a 16% chance to glance and 16% chance to pen. If he glanced it was only a 16% that I’m on fire. Which I will have a coin toss to put out. If he gets the pen then it’s still a coin toss I’m knocked out. So for him to knock me out via glance that could happen around 2% of the time. Knocking me out with a pen could happen about 8%. Combined it was roughly a ten percent chance. It’s your prerogative if you want to take that gamble, but you can’t get upset when the more likely outcome happens than the edge case. Risk management is important for winning a game sure, but I think it’s vital for ensuring a pleasant experience win or lose because you have proper expectations set.
Practice, know your list, know your list strengths/weaknesses, know your opponent's list threats, stay on mission, make a plan, learn from your mistakes, and don't f*ck up your deployment! One of the things I often say about 'lists' is, "It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts." ;)
Hi Bo, something I've said before is that the list is the car, the player is the driver, the terrain is the track and the mission is the formula for success and also the single most important element to fully understand if you want to win.
On a completely different note, I noticed that your mic quality is really good for what seems to be simple equipment. Do you do any post-processing of it before you upload?
I think the slight problem with this analysis is that players ranked 5 just won't bring bad lists, sure they my not be playing the top 1% the best list in the game but even if they say they're playing a bad or off meta list it's probably still a top 10% list and will probably have some tec for dealing with with the most popular meta lists. Because they have so much experience writing lists they will just always write list in an optional way. It would be fun to run an experiment with a load of tablets set up with one good list and one bad list on them the get a load of the best players to play the bad list against newer players with the best lists. But I guess the problem then would be how bad do you make the bad list 🤣🤣🤣
true that is a problem, I have done the experiment of running an average nation (partisans) with an average list(infantry spam) to tournaments as a good player. Lost to good players with good lists, but beat average players with good lists... anecdotal I know, but...
Maybe people are concerned about a possible Rock/Paper/Scissors problem in V3 - a tank list will beat an infantry list, an infantry list will beat an artillery list, an artillery list will beat a tank list. In which case your result in a tournament could depend on the luck of the matchups. Yes, good players will try to build a strong list that can deal with all scenarios and all opponents, but if the Rock/Paper/Scissors problem is really bad then a general purpose list could lose to everything.
Rock paper scissors is a good thing. It stops a meta metastasizing around a single build. As if there is a consensus build someone can always show up with the counter meta build and do well. If there isn’t rock paper scissors, then the meta congeals around a specific build and everyone is basically running the same thing.
I wonder if tournaments may go back to a V2 Generic Platoon list if the new Platoon Structure proves to be broken. I wonder how the new rules would mess with the old Generic Platoon structure?
Players always trump lists. A good player can use an objectively average list and still make it work well and a bad player can make a good list play terribly because the list is only half the equation. You also need to know what to use and when to use it in game. I am a distinctly average player. If I am being generous to myself, maybe a better than average player as when I go to big tournaments I can get to within spitting distance of the top 10 places. Rarely I might get into the top 10. Sometimes I'll play against multiple tournament winners and I'll be very switched on and somehow gain the win. Other times against other players my brain will just shut down and I'll make really stupid decisions, or in Bolt Actions case, I had to make a bad decision because my order dice came out at the wrong time. The list is just the tool. How you use it is more important and that is entirely down to the players skill.
Will a top player like Bo win a competitive tournament with a bad/average list? Unlikely. Competitive players care about lists because there is nothing they can do about the opponent's skill. Nothing about tactics and strategy until they can react. Good and top players, all practice, understand risk mitigation and have a good sense of strategy & tactics. Sure, strategy and tactics win the games, but across a series of games and competitive tournaments - you cannot compare / control for strategy/tactics. If it is a tactic / strategy associated with a unit or cluster of units - you are back to lists. If it is just making a lot of good plays - it is too situational and context specific - to really aggregate into meaningful discussion. Sure you can say good and top players make consistently good decisions and that is why they win - but that is stating the obvious and not particularly insightful. (I do value Bo's videos on how to execute plays, tactics and strategy - but again this is mostly about preparing for and understanding your own list in terms of relevance to tournament play and making you a better player. But again - for competitive discussion - it adds little) So I agree with Bo on a very obvious level, but don't understand why he is so defensive about list building playing a role in success. Especially given how consistently we have seen list archtypes perform in V2 and his consistent list selection. I mean why doesn't he play Italians or Germans or Japanese - if it is only skill - because he want to win most of the time. Which means against other good player that also want to win most of the time - playing list that gives you the best chance of winning / surprise factor / not handicap you. I have played plenty of competitive tabletop games. Won tournaments in miniatures and TCGs. I certainly don't think it is all about lists, but almost in all competitive play discourse people discuss lists and how they perform in a meta context. List matter. I have played lists I knew are not optimal and done poorly and better than expected (often against average players or on surprise factor). I have never won playing a generally regarded poor list. Nor seen anyone win a serious tourney with a bad list. I have seen good players win against noobs and average players with not optimised lists, but have never seen a generally regarded good player win/dominate all the time playing bad lists against good players. Even those who like to play off-meta lists or try cool things (and have the skills to do it more consistently than most) do lose out against the consistent WAAC player playing good lists. They too will do better (as skilled players) if they play better lists, but since WAAC is not their main motivation - they go for less frequent but more "spectacular" (from their motivations) wins.
the quality of the book is terrible. gray not white background poor quality paper. the small version is too small to read you need a magnifying glass to read it again gray not white background ugh
Well at least you admit to rambling. You are conflating a lot of issues. Good players, play good lists. Good players also tend to understand risk mitigation and practice a lot. But there is nothing you can really do to control & react to player skill. That is why in all other competitive wargames and TCG people talk about lists. That is one thing you can control to give you an edge against other players. I think this obsession of yours has more to do with you playing a 5 Gurkha Assault list and other 5 lists in your tourneys, but somehow not wanting to admit that plays a role in your success. You took on my challenge and did worse than you predicted. Again, nobody claims you are only a good player because of your / a list. Nobody also claims you can give a bad player a good list and they will stomp all competition and win the tourney. But lists will and do matter the closer the skill and at top tourneys and at the top tables - list can / do matter. Along with other things - but again across tourneys and data the only thing we can control is lists and to some extent player skill with Top 8 / Top 4 filters or if BA had an elo ranking in place etc. Again nowhere that I am aware of do people have this debate and competitive content is focussed on lists and data on the meta. Like I said, I think this has more to do with you trying to internally justify / respond to criticism...Which is silly if it is that you only win because of your lists...
@@WhiskeyjackZA we have re-stated these positions over and over again. I highly doubt that I can convince you,or you me. So lets leave it at that. I do find your comments about obsession and justifying stuff to myself to be uncharitable. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of most top international players( see the winners interviews) and you are not in a position to tell me my motivations. So lets not do that. Other then that, always good to hear your thoughts😃 what do you think of V3?
The concept of risk management is so important. I played an opponent who was throwing an absolute fit that his attempt to blow my tank up failed. I just asked him “how likely do you think it was going to be to work out like that?” He thought it was basically a coin toss. That he was just unlucky. Having to explain to him that it was a coin toss to hit. Then another only a 16% chance to glance and 16% chance to pen. If he glanced it was only a 16% that I’m on fire. Which I will have a coin toss to put out. If he gets the pen then it’s still a coin toss I’m knocked out. So for him to knock me out via glance that could happen around 2% of the time. Knocking me out with a pen could happen about 8%. Combined it was roughly a ten percent chance. It’s your prerogative if you want to take that gamble, but you can’t get upset when the more likely outcome happens than the edge case. Risk management is important for winning a game sure, but I think it’s vital for ensuring a pleasant experience win or lose because you have proper expectations set.
Practice, know your list, know your list strengths/weaknesses, know your opponent's list threats, stay on mission, make a plan, learn from your mistakes, and don't f*ck up your deployment! One of the things I often say about 'lists' is, "It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts." ;)
Hi Bo, something I've said before is that the list is the car, the player is the driver, the terrain is the track and the mission is the formula for success and also the single most important element to fully understand if you want to win.
Nice analogy. The dice is the weather perhaps
@@darrenhardy9005 yes Darren, precisely! Plus the other drivers present are also key, the draw is the Grid, the TOs are the race marshalling team!
On a completely different note, I noticed that your mic quality is really good for what seems to be simple equipment. Do you do any post-processing of it before you upload?
@@dreadknot69 I do not.... Kind of tech-illiterate
I think the slight problem with this analysis is that players ranked 5 just won't bring bad lists, sure they my not be playing the top 1% the best list in the game but even if they say they're playing a bad or off meta list it's probably still a top 10% list and will probably have some tec for dealing with with the most popular meta lists. Because they have so much experience writing lists they will just always write list in an optional way. It would be fun to run an experiment with a load of tablets set up with one good list and one bad list on them the get a load of the best players to play the bad list against newer players with the best lists. But I guess the problem then would be how bad do you make the bad list 🤣🤣🤣
true that is a problem, I have done the experiment of running an average nation (partisans) with an average list(infantry spam) to tournaments as a good player. Lost to good players with good lists, but beat average players with good lists... anecdotal I know, but...
Maybe people are concerned about a possible Rock/Paper/Scissors problem in V3 - a tank list will beat an infantry list, an infantry list will beat an artillery list, an artillery list will beat a tank list. In which case your result in a tournament could depend on the luck of the matchups. Yes, good players will try to build a strong list that can deal with all scenarios and all opponents, but if the Rock/Paper/Scissors problem is really bad then a general purpose list could lose to everything.
difficult to know if rock/paper/scissors is a problem until we get data from tournaments
That same situation could happen in v2 btw
Rock paper scissors is a good thing. It stops a meta metastasizing around a single build. As if there is a consensus build someone can always show up with the counter meta build and do well. If there isn’t rock paper scissors, then the meta congeals around a specific build and everyone is basically running the same thing.
I wonder if tournaments may go back to a V2 Generic Platoon list if the new Platoon Structure proves to be broken. I wonder how the new rules would mess with the old Generic Platoon structure?
Players always trump lists. A good player can use an objectively average list and still make it work well and a bad player can make a good list play terribly because the list is only half the equation. You also need to know what to use and when to use it in game.
I am a distinctly average player. If I am being generous to myself, maybe a better than average player as when I go to big tournaments I can get to within spitting distance of the top 10 places. Rarely I might get into the top 10. Sometimes I'll play against multiple tournament winners and I'll be very switched on and somehow gain the win. Other times against other players my brain will just shut down and I'll make really stupid decisions, or in Bolt Actions case, I had to make a bad decision because my order dice came out at the wrong time.
The list is just the tool. How you use it is more important and that is entirely down to the players skill.
Will a top player like Bo win a competitive tournament with a bad/average list? Unlikely. Competitive players care about lists because there is nothing they can do about the opponent's skill. Nothing about tactics and strategy until they can react. Good and top players, all practice, understand risk mitigation and have a good sense of strategy & tactics.
Sure, strategy and tactics win the games, but across a series of games and competitive tournaments - you cannot compare / control for strategy/tactics. If it is a tactic / strategy associated with a unit or cluster of units - you are back to lists. If it is just making a lot of good plays - it is too situational and context specific - to really aggregate into meaningful discussion. Sure you can say good and top players make consistently good decisions and that is why they win - but that is stating the obvious and not particularly insightful. (I do value Bo's videos on how to execute plays, tactics and strategy - but again this is mostly about preparing for and understanding your own list in terms of relevance to tournament play and making you a better player. But again - for competitive discussion - it adds little)
So I agree with Bo on a very obvious level, but don't understand why he is so defensive about list building playing a role in success. Especially given how consistently we have seen list archtypes perform in V2 and his consistent list selection. I mean why doesn't he play Italians or Germans or Japanese - if it is only skill - because he want to win most of the time. Which means against other good player that also want to win most of the time - playing list that gives you the best chance of winning / surprise factor / not handicap you.
I have played plenty of competitive tabletop games. Won tournaments in miniatures and TCGs. I certainly don't think it is all about lists, but almost in all competitive play discourse people discuss lists and how they perform in a meta context. List matter. I have played lists I knew are not optimal and done poorly and better than expected (often against average players or on surprise factor). I have never won playing a generally regarded poor list. Nor seen anyone win a serious tourney with a bad list. I have seen good players win against noobs and average players with not optimised lists, but have never seen a generally regarded good player win/dominate all the time playing bad lists against good players. Even those who like to play off-meta lists or try cool things (and have the skills to do it more consistently than most) do lose out against the consistent WAAC player playing good lists. They too will do better (as skilled players) if they play better lists, but since WAAC is not their main motivation - they go for less frequent but more "spectacular" (from their motivations) wins.
the quality of the book is terrible. gray not white background poor quality paper. the small version is too small to read you need a magnifying glass to read it again gray not white background ugh
Skill is always more important than a list
Well at least you admit to rambling. You are conflating a lot of issues. Good players, play good lists. Good players also tend to understand risk mitigation and practice a lot.
But there is nothing you can really do to control & react to player skill. That is why in all other competitive wargames and TCG people talk about lists. That is one thing you can control to give you an edge against other players.
I think this obsession of yours has more to do with you playing a 5 Gurkha Assault list and other 5 lists in your tourneys, but somehow not wanting to admit that plays a role in your success.
You took on my challenge and did worse than you predicted. Again, nobody claims you are only a good player because of your / a list. Nobody also claims you can give a bad player a good list and they will stomp all competition and win the tourney. But lists will and do matter the closer the skill and at top tourneys and at the top tables - list can / do matter. Along with other things - but again across tourneys and data the only thing we can control is lists and to some extent player skill with Top 8 / Top 4 filters or if BA had an elo ranking in place etc.
Again nowhere that I am aware of do people have this debate and competitive content is focussed on lists and data on the meta.
Like I said, I think this has more to do with you trying to internally justify / respond to criticism...Which is silly if it is that you only win because of your lists...
@@WhiskeyjackZA we have re-stated these positions over and over again. I highly doubt that I can convince you,or you me. So lets leave it at that. I do find your comments about obsession and justifying stuff to myself to be uncharitable. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of most top international players( see the winners interviews) and you are not in a position to tell me my motivations. So lets not do that. Other then that, always good to hear your thoughts😃 what do you think of V3?
"Why are people so negative?"
Instead you should ask why people keep making stupid changes that make things worse.