Tactics, listbuilding and anti-meta! Interview with Ryan David
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 янв 2023
- Ryan is a rising star on the American bolt action tournament scene, and the winner of Warzone Atlanta. We discuss his thoughts on the games and his win. INCLUDING the infamous Hellcat!
Tipping the odds of getting your order dice drawn by having more order dice and smaller units is a strategy I didn't consider but makes perfect sense. Another great video!
Ryan congrats on Warzone Atlanta win! I am building early war US Airborne army for fun, thanks for the tips on American lists.
Congratulations again on a great game Ryan, and thanks for mentioning my list. I did take the secondary mission in that first game, which was kill more HQs units than the other player (Medic).
Ah! I could not for the life of me remember the secondary. Tough but very fun game.
With a lot of terrains that give you -2 to get hit, long range and so on, "no armor best armor".
Also, recce, so you can escape if everything goes wrong.
That's why i would take the hellcat
Great video always , there was much talk about this list or that list doing various things and I was wondering if there is a resource anywhere to see these lists ? Like do tournaments publish results somewhere ?
unfortunately not, Lists, results and such are up to individual tournaments what thay want to do with them.
I just got done with my M4 Crocodile and might bring it out in February just to see what it does at a local tournament, as it is a M4 Sherman but with two distinct alterations plus is slow with the trailer. The first is it only has a 1" template for the HE for the main AT gun and the second has no auto gyro's so you have no advantage by taking it veteran. The whole being able to choose between the flamethrower or hull MMG to use is a tactical flexibility that most flamethrower vehicles do not have. As most times they are either stand alone or fixed to the main armament on most other tanks. Then I have my twin bazooka jeep to tackle any enemy vehicles that think of coming out to take a shot at my tank. As if I move the jeep last I can recce the very next turn.
Will you be at Michigan GT?
Ryan might, my economy does not allow me to travel more than a couple of times a year for tournaments
Hellcat>Bigcat
A statement like skill matters more than the list is heavily context specific imo? And not as easy to untangle...(See my disclaimer - it depends on the question as well).
In a 5 vs 5 (1-5 rating) list match it might be skill that decides it, but it might also be drawing 6+ order dice in a row turn 4/5 or rolling really (above even reasonable risk mitigation) good / bad in general or at the right / wrong time. A combination of these things. So in games with lots of variance even if part of being skilled is managing the varience - it cannot manage all variance.
A good player with a 3 list can and will probably beat a fairlly inexperienced and / or bad player with a 5 list. But let say a 1 list with no AT against armour...In addition "bad" is one thing, but how about average and above average player that knows his 5 list really well...
I think it is at the end a combination of list building, skill and luck (especially in BA with lots of variable / swingy design points) that all play a role in the mix and interact to determine outcomes...
Further that skill and good list building / picking solid archetypes / list designs is strongly related in competitive play. Spikes care about winning...
Looking at most systems including BA, there is a lot of evidence that suggest list building (meta play) is a big part of the puzzle and probably the biggest constant controlable at competitive levels.
Most succesful players play the stronger factions / armies and 4+ lists, there are clear lists / archetypes that do well during meta periods and anti-meta play is itself not designing weak lists but actually the opposite...(of course anti-meta as a Spike exercise is different than anti-meta as more of a Johnny or Timmy exercise...again context. Or anti-meta vs off-meta...)
But to what I actually want to suggest as a fun challenge...
And to be a bit naughty!
If skill is really the most important thing - here is a challenge for all super competitive players / Bo for his next serious event:
(☆) Go to your next important (not fun tourney) and highly competitive player tourney with a 3 list and see if your skill carries you to a top 5...
Disclaimer:
Look I agree that skill matters a lot but it depends on the context. At super competitive level a lot of players are skilled and play 5 lists. Does luck matter more? Was it just the specific matchup? Table? Is the lists and matchups so balanced that it is mostly skill? (Good meta) Etc etc etc.
Lets be honest at a very competitive level "skilled players" as part of their "skills" bring "skilled" lists that is 4+ lists.
So skills might matter more in general but since no skilled competitive player will run 3 lists and try and beat lots of 5 lists as a competitive strategy , you cannot say that lists building is not important in competitive play? A big part of it is to gain an advantage and mitigate against skill and variance.
So a lot depends on the question asked in relation to your statement.
All this requires a decent response. I May do a whole video on it
But the short answer is that for prediction purpose looking at lists only is 60% accurate, while looking at player skill only is 80% accutate
@@boltactiontutorialsbybomor3846 Sure but again I think it depends what you want to say and you need to be clear about some data points / assumptions.
Assume you know nothing about the players, I think you are right about 60% list prediction in your tourney prediction videos. Bad and average players can play 5 lists and skew it potential performance down.
If you know who are good players, not only are they likely to do well but also they are likely to play good lists?
(So yeah, if that is the question, then I agree, player skill is a better prediction than not knowing the skill of the player but only the list. BUT...say you know a players is good would knowing he also is playing a 1-3 list really not impact on your evaluation of his likely performance? Further knowing a player is good just pure in general trumps not knowing a player and just getting list information - it is not saying much...)
This last point is really what I am trying to tease out with my comment and challenge.
But, it would be a cool video and I would like you to actually look at tournament / results apps and the actual data in the discussion.
BtW like I said we agree mostly, I am just trying to make it a less absolutely true statement than a generally true statement with some assumptions (decent list).
Look, say you take ten of the best WTC players. Or some other standard for a only the best level of player. But you give them random 4+ lists. Would you say the winner only won because of skill and the list had nothing to do with it?
@@WhiskeyjackZA I have made a video response.... Relesing next week
@@WhiskeyjackZA one interresting way to test what is more important would be to take an average player(3) give him a 5-list and pit him against a top player(5) with an average list(3) who do you think would win?