Do you at the very least know why this quote was created by the top players and why it was and to some extend still is true?
Oh come off it with the "skill" crap. It's a pathetic argument for GW games and it's even more pathetic here. Mathing out lists to the point where probability carries more weight in your army list than your actual army list isn't a "skill". It's gaming the system. The "skills" necessary to play Ariadna are being able to read the rules and a basic understanding of the game. Same as any other faction. The "skills" necessary to play Ariadna at top tables? Not getting matched up with a counter and having an idea of what your opponents might be taking in a competitive environment. Neither of those things are "skill" based. It's luck and social knowledge. Sure it does, but it also draws attention to the issue for the other people making the far nicer statements to actually get the chance to really get their points across. Because you will never, ever be able to truly moderate this forum given that you let people constantly quash opposing viewpoints by being dismissive or insinuating that it's a "skill" issue when there are factions that have not been brought up to a reasonable point to succeed in the current play environment.
GEE, I WONDER WHY "TOP PLAYERS" WOULD MAKE A QUOTE THAT MAKES THEM SEEM TO BE BETTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE... Oh, and for the record? This quote was ridiculous then, it's ridiculous now, and the fact that you're trying to rationalize it with "this quote was created by the top players" to this day is a whole other magnitude of ridiculousness. It was created as a dismissive attempt to make the game seem to be built upon more skill than the competition at the time. It was a dismissive attempt to make players who came on these boards with issues seem to "just not get it" when it comes to some gotcha! mechanic in previous editions.
It was not actually and shows the level of understanding you do not have, for the record and for you to learn or alternatively for you to be reminded what the quote was and still is. Because Infinity with the introduction of ITS became a scenario based game, a good player with a random list could win a game. The quote "Its not your list it's you" was made to explain and introduce the idea that infinity is a tactical game and not a strategic game, therefore the list is at least to some extend irrelevant in contrast with strategic games were victory or defeat is determined to a greater or lesser extend to the list matchup, but what is extremely relevant is the usage of the resources you have on the table. This is the reason the US scene made the quote and not because the players who introduced and populated the game in the US were elitists who frowned other players. As far as skill level goes, it is undeniable that skill, more than luck, is important in the game, and it shows because good players win consistently with a variety of armies even armies that are universally considered underperforming, you cannot file that under luck or strong armies, therefore player skill plays a substantial role, as a recent example in the Canadian satellite the winner submitted wrong lists and won, and listening to Owen's analysis of the games you can see a deeper understanding of the game. In the end if skill was not an issue I would expect to see a different distribution of victories/ defeats in armies and players, some people are really good playing this game, some people are not, it happens. So reverting to the original topic if someone who is considered a good player has a consistent good performance with Ariadna, then the army can provide lists that can perform well enough, this would suggest that we should not try to find why the army is "trash" since it obviously will not show in the stats (look for example N4 PanOceania) but what can be done to make the army more accessible to a wider category of player skill distribution. It's an entirely different issue that requires an entirely different set of solutions, and in contrast with "army is trash" is something that can be supported by data.
So what "skill" are people using then? Go on. What actual, demonstrable "skill" is being used when someone "submits the wrong lists and wins"? Because frankly, that just reads as dumb frigging luck.
Since you have not even bother to listen to Tactical awareness Season 3 special episode, you might try Ash's channel is great and you could support him by adding to the views. Anyway since you want it spelled out, beyond the obviously technical skills measuring by the eye distances and angles, something not all of us can do, there are three distinct levels of competency, one needs to master knowledge of your army its units and the list you have brought, the same for your opponent and the scenarios, each is a distinct category and has different levels, its entirely different for example to see units stats, make actual army lists for scenarios and play with said lists, especially multiple times, likewise while it is possible to get some knowledge for another army by playing a lot against it, it is entirely different to play with it. Once you master the above you can start making coherent plans for minimal order expenditure to achieve the mission objectives contingency plans for bad luck and unfortunate losses and not overcommitting, ideally you need a cool head to remember that your units have skills and equipment that even though they are rarely used, if ever, they can be used in a situation that has developed right now and likewise not be surprised by your opponent's units because they have some extra capability that is rarely used. And yes, there is a tremendous difference between a player that knows well his army but not his opponents army and a player that knows well his and his opponents army.
Of course they're knowledge. Any skill is just knowledge. Mind that they're two different kinds of knowledge, the academical one adquired by studying and reading and pondering, and the practical let's get down to the ground and get dirty until it become a second nature to you. But both of them are knowledge. Because you need training to adquire and master an skill. The ability of being able to do something without knowledge is called talent.
You can get surprisingly far in Infinity with mastery of basic movement rules and positioning. A Fusilier with a Combi Rifle in cover and good range is very likely to beat a troop worth seven times his price exposed and facing the wrong way. However, I'd argue it doesn't go as far as it used to; the extra power of Hacking and other no-line-of-sight options, proliferation of DTWs, and imbalanced internal design force a few more die rolls than they used to, and that's where a faction's options (or lack thereof) show themselves most. Ariadna's standout options are access to Camoflage on most archetypes of attack units and Specialists, improved access to powerful ammunition, and Total Immunity on their linebreakers. These are good. It comes at the cost of any and all high modifier adjustments (outside of shotguns at point blank) that could make that ammunition connect, almost zero Hacking, and no Eclipse/White Noise. This makes the faction as it stands arguably overly reliant on its Camo and TI troops, as instead of being a handy tool, they're the only parts of the faction that can't be trivially exploited by enemy elites with high gunfighting modifiers and/or Hackers.
Infinity isn't that complicated game. Sure there is some mastery involved, but this isn't the most difficult game out there. Infinity has always revolved around busted profiles dominating the game. Nothing has really changed from N3 to N5 in that regard. People want to play to busted profiles because they want win because winning feels good. This is normal or atleast expected competive monkee behavior. In Infintiy, faction pecking order is determinated by how certain important (but notoriously poorly worded or downright non-interactive) rules in the rulebook are interpreted by the players. In N3 it was Ko Dali smoke tricks. In N4 it was shotgun DTWs and GML. A single profile can make or break a faction. For example I milked the pre-nerf Nourkias for all it's worth. It was awesome especially against Ariadna because they had just lost bearpodes that were the sole truly busted profile of that faction. Now that CB has been bullied to nerfing Nourkias to the ground I obviously switched faction to TAK because the sole reason for playing OCF has been removed. I think that the people are actually complaing that game is too balanced at moment. There are no Ko Dalis, bearpodes or Nourkias that you can reliably use to dominate newbies or showing your friends that you have "mastery" of the game. Your troopers actually need to win those f2f rolls and you can lose a game on the first turn if your newbie opponent critically succeeds in a single dice roll. This terrifies the tryhard players out there. While this sounds that this how Infinity has always been played, it's not actually true. In N3 and N4, the most games revolved around interactions that weren't actually that interactive.
