How the fuck did those shitty-ass list win Balls-Con?
Fucking Comp scores.
Fucking Sportsmanship/Modelling/painting trying to determine who the best PLAYER is. Not HOBBYIST, PLAYER.
Skill is not subjective, people, there's a clearly defined way to determine it. Painting and friendliness are ENTIRELY subjective, and it is therefore an Epic Fail way to determine...well, anything.
Fucking Fail.
Wish I was surprised.
When the Top Three fucking Generalship scores go to players that aren't in the top Two overall, that's fail.
When Nids place at all, that's Fail.
When Shitty-ass MegaBattleforce lists of ANY variety, (it's not because it's Orks, it's because it's shit) place, that's Epic Fail.
When a guy needs to go on the Fucking BoLS Lounge after the event to clarify whether or not his Hydra has a fucking Quad-Linked (WTF. Seriously, moron, QUAD-FUCKING-LINKED?!?!?!) Autocannon, because it came up at the event, and his Rules Fail was so complete he didn't already fucking know, or have the ability to READ?!?!
Yeah, that's Fail all right.
Roll on YTTHCon 2010.
Heresy, Dakka, Warseer, I'm looking at you fuckers to set up some shit too, it cannot possibly be worse than Balls-Con.
Actually, I don't really expect you to. It's a huge undertaking, one far more conducive to a Blog than a Forum. Fuckers wasn't meant offensively at you either. ;)
EDIT: This article on Blood Of Kittens is interesting.
39 comments:
Hmmm. No sooner do I finish my Nerdrage, than a more comprehensive overview appears.
It appears, then, that Nids also finished last, out of the 32 entrants.
The Top Ten featured the following:
Nids
Orks
CSM
Guard
Eldar
Guard
CSM
Orks
Marines
CSM
- That's less Fail than I anticipated. Still pretty Fail though.
I'm 100% with you on the 'soft' scores. Judge paint, control sportsmanship.
Good painting should not compensate for poor playing.
If we're going to have a 'best general' then be honest about it. The guy that won the most. Not 'guy that had the best mix of sportsmanship/painting/scores.' I mean, it's nice to know that, but then you're...telling me about an amalgam, that doesn't telll me if this winner is actually the best at anything overall.
I mean, they'll do it how they want, and I don't mean to knock the painers and the sportsman and the generals, but...'best overall' doesn't necessarily mean best at any one thing, hence the 'best general', 'best painted', and 'most patient lamb to the slaughter' which is what sportsmanship awards are actually about.
I've said it on Stelek's blog, and I'll say it again. I have yet to play at a tournament - but what I'm reading on the net is so disgusting that it's seriously putting me off.
The mere possibility (and for Stelek reality) that sore losers can screw me with poor sportsmanship scores and cost me a win is fucking ridiculous.
Don't expect to see me on tournaments outside my gaming group.
lol fuck shit fuck fuck fuck any more King? lol :P
I saw that Ork list, how did that mish mash list win? Really hasn't got a brilliant setup.
The lists looked like young kids list, 12-15 who haven't grasped tactics yet and just take cool looking models etc etc and can't afford transports so go suck balls foot armies instead of mech armies.
I'll link you to some funny comments on Dakka Dakka about my Eldar list, someone said Wave Serpents are pointless for Dire Avengers, keh? 4+ armour save out in the open, I don't think so :P
I struggle to stomach the Fail that is Dakkas's Army list forum, but I'll check it out. :)
It was just silly things like no need for Wave Serpents for Dire Avengers, give the Autarch swooping hawk wings and possibly get swooping hakws (which changes my list all together) don't put the striking scorpions in a transport because they can infilitrate. Sill things like that.
I am guessing you lost?
Wow. This is some dumbass shit. The scoring was heavily weighted towards tabletop performance. There was no comp score. I'd say you win today's award for spouting off without knowing that the fuck you're talking about.
After day 1(4 games), a hardcore min-maxed IG Vets in Chimeras list was in first by a big margin. No one was surprised. However, the surprise came on day 2 when he got beat by guess who? That's right, the fucking Orks list you said was shit.
The IG guy got the top generalship score. If not for the loss TO THE ORKS he'd have been in the top spot overall. Let's think about that. The guy that won BEST GENERAL who had one of the most vicious mech lists available lost to the Orks. OMG!!! IT'S UNPOSSIBLE!!!
The Nid player had a really interesting strategy that very few people had seen before. Do you know what it was? I'm gonna go with no. He used this strategy to confuse his opponents and whoop some ass.
You even got some tags on your post wrong. "Idiots" should be singular. "Thoughts" is hyperbole. But "fail", that one is dead on.
A hahaha. Good job, Anonymous.
The Ork list was so shit I could beat it with fewer points.
I haven't seen the Scoring system properly, but what I have seen makes me cringe. Apparently there were points awarded for getting out of a Transport?!? Retarded.
The 'IG guy' did NOT get the Top Generalship score overall, apparently. No, the guy who won had more than 50 points more than him...which is uber-Fail at competitiveness. I saw a thread querying some of the tactical nous of the winner, specifically in the "Was I cheated against" vein.
It seems to me that the players suffered a significant amount of Fail - ie, most of them were shit.
If you don't know the rules, your army, the mission, and have a basic idea of what the opponent's army can do, you're shit.
Painting counted 25 points, and was 18 points for 3 colors, 1 for every quarter of the army that looked like it belonged together, and up to 3 points for stand-out painting. Yes, playing with unpainted models cost you points, but a can of spray and an hour of drybrushing would get you 22 points; if you can't be bothered to do that, then you lose points for it. I did all the paint scoring myself, and the scores were almost all 22-24.
Sportsmanship was bad/good/great (2/6/8) with discussion from the judges about bad or great scores. Hardly game-breaking, and overriding revenge scoring was part of the judges' responsibilities. A hard list played by a player not screaming at his opponent would expect AT WORST 42/56 points in Sportsmanship.
Quiz was 20 questions, 12 easy and 8 harder. So anyone with solid basic rules knowledge should get at worst 12/20 there.
Total soft score variance from maximum for anyone who put an hour's work into painting, wasn't an ass at the table, and knew the basic rules was 25 points - just over 1 primary objective. Hardly a fluffy bunny beauty pagent.
As far as sportsmanship goes, you either have to score it, ignore it, or throw people out for being rude. Had a player who lost his cool in game 2 and went totally ballistic on his opponent, getting a bad game and a talk with the judges. After that, he calmed down, turned himself around, and had a great weekend. So by scoring it and talking to the guy, his experience was better, and things were better for his opponents as well. Ignoring it was not an option that is worth considering, as there are limits to acceptable behavior in public. And if we threw the guy out, how good would that have been?
As to your assertion that you could beat the Ork list with under points, I feel the same - the list itself doesn't inspire any degree of fear whatsoever. That the player did so well with a weaker list probably has something to do with skill, practice, and luck - all of which have as much or more to do with tournament success than the list does. We had a bunch of Mech CSM and Vulkan lists that one would expect to eat that Ork army up like a fat guy on a donut, but somehow that didn't happen - luck, skill, and practice (and maybe more luck with that, because jesu, a single squad of Berserkers would mathematically kill about half of those Orks).
So while I disagree with your presentation, the point behind your ramble is not entirely off-base - something happened that the "best" lists did not win the tournament. Notice that both top players have been playing those armies for years, and the top general only started playing his after the new Guard Codex was released. Maybe there is something to this whole "playing games" makes you better at games thing after all?
And the Overall Winner had the most Battle Points, the Second Overall had the second most Battle Points. The Third Overall did not have the third most battle points (two less than the Best General and Second General, who tied on BP).
So soft scores changed nothing about first and second place.
It's the LIST not the player! It's the LIST not the PLAYER!!! BRAAWR!
You used the word "fail" so often, I feel like I have to revert to your ancient, foreign language to communicate. So here goes:
lrn2play n00b. Then maybe the list won't be so damned important to your victory.
You might want to check yourself before you start calling people names you sniveling Warhammer pussy. For you to insult people and an event that you weren't even at is the most moronic thing I have ever seen. Why don't you man up and show yourself next year? But, that would take balls...not BoLS....BALLS. You know, men have them....not sniveling little internet nerds.
As far as my question goes about the Hydra, I did have the rules wrong. I have been back in the game 8 months now and that was the 3rd time I have used the Hydra. People make mistakes. You made a mistake writing about things that you are totally ignorant of, a big fat mistake. However, you didn't fail...to make yourself look like an ass! I'm new, what's your excuse?
I have little idea what this whole conversation is about.
But Crazy Red Praetorian, you're a twat.
Where the FUCK did you get quad-linked from anyway?
LOL. Making people rage is hilarious.
JWolf, as ever, it seems, you are the only one interested in having an actual discussion. I genuinely appreciate presenting the scoring system.
I'll take some time to mull over it, and put it in another post, I hope you take the time to read it when I do. My only initial reaction is surprise that you allowed people to play with unpainted models at all. Frankly, I would never allow that at an event that was intended to be a Flagship deal, like you guys had planned...Obviously it's your event, maybe you didn't want to exclude people like that, but at the same time I expect 3 Colours minimum at an event - not as a way to score points.
If I played a player using those Orks, a player of equal skill and equal luck (which, we have to assume when making such claims - there is always going to be someone better/luckier than you, and at least as many people, usually more, who are worse) then I have no doubt I could table them, given sufficient time to do so. In fairness, Orks can be hard to fully table, given the model count. Even if getting their asses handed to them, they can hold on for that draw, or even scrape a win, purely on number of models, and GtG.
Also, "fat guy on a donut" - LMAO. I think we'd get on in real life.
CrazyRedPreatorian: I mostly said that for a laugh...but also because I think you're a dick. And a moron. I liked your Hydra conversion though...my opinion of you is pretty much because you jumped down my throat before - this revelation that you're new to the game (8 months? I've played 15 years.) just makes YOU seem even more foolish for lambasting me at the time when it's fair to assume I know significantly more about list building than you, and all I originally commented on was JWolf's list, not his abilities as a player.
His list was better than that Ork one, in case anyone is keeping score, IMO.
If ANYONE wants to pay for me to fly over to Texas to play BoLSCon, I'll fucking do it. Until then, shut the fuck up. I'd genuinely love to play. Admittedly, even if I won, I'm sure I'd not get much more respect from a number of you, but it's gone way beyond me caring about that. Those of you capable of reason know that irrespective of my writing style, I rarely don't allude to a point.
Massawyrm:
I won't tolerate Racism on my Blog. Perhaps you didn't mean to be racist, so I have not deleted your comment. You WERE racist, however, given that I AM foreign, and, for all you know, English isn't my first language.
Maybe you can pull your head out of your arse though, and realise that it's impossible for me to judge player skill without first-hand experience. Just like you don't know how good or not I am, all you can go by is what I present as part of my gaming experience...which is my army lists.
Having to judge a player by their list, because you have no other data?!?!? OMFG, that would be logical!
Fuck me, how fucking dare I use logic, based on the ONLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE to make a judgement call about a player's ability. Of course a good player can win with an inferior list. He SHOULDN'T though, because, in a Tournament, he shouldn't be that far ahead of his opponents.
Side note: CRP, if you don't mind, how did you do overall, in terms of W/D/L?
I wouldn't be too happy if a player in the top 6 lost twice out of 7, in all honesty, and since you finished out of the top ten, I doubt you won more than 3.
You have to remember that a loss could be anywhere from 47-0 to 24-23, because scoring wasn't binary, so 5-2 could have a very wide variantion in actual scores; the battlepoints per game are much more useful than simple win/losses. No one in the the tournament won every game, but those who did best mitigated their losses by not throwing in the towel and getting what objectives they could - something that veterans are better at doing; go figure.
Along with a post on the best general's army lists, I'm also working a bit on the play that I saw at the table (certainly never had the chance to watch a full game anywhere, but I did try to gather information where I could) which I think will be somewhat instructive.
Unpainted models was an experiment. In the end, I had 2 unpainted armies in the 40K, and one in Fantasy. Mostly this wasn't an issue, but I think the cost of not getting to at least 3 colors will be steeper for next year.
I'll always talk to anyone who will actually use their brain rather than throw out random vitriol, so just tag me instead of ranting next time; if someone hadn't linked your rant, it might have been a week before I ever saw it (eventually I read almost everything, but we have a busy weekend - my son is Goatboy's ringbearer - and I'm dragging ass after Bolscon).
Also, fail and fuck are pretty well overused, so try some new ones. In general, I think the best insulting idioms are in Spanish.
Hmmm. I've never learnt much Spanish...El Failo sounds like an interesting change though... ;)
Since you're doing that too, I'll wait for both.
It's only polite.
Personally you will only get people to your side of thinking if you quit coming at it from such a harsh angle. I am really tired of reading Fail on everything, when in reality you could just say, "I don't know how they could have won, as that army does not look competitive at all." I know, fail is easier, but come on people. We are here to help people get better at the game. That is what we are wanting to do with these posts and opinions. The more we rely on internet speak, or somehow belittling each other, the more we look like morons and people who are mad that others did well.
Did I win? No. I did play orks, that were tweak with a mind set to get at IG. I played 3 Vulkan lists, 1 Khan list, 2 CSM lists and an Eldar (not a real game). I do agree that a Vulkan list, built correctly, should fry the crap out of an ork list. Rerolling wounds hurts, no matter how many nob bikerz you have running around. Plus, 1 5 man TH/SS termie squad should eat our 600 pt+ nob biker unit.
As you can tell, I don't get mad at anyone and try my best to be the less "fail" and more positive spin on the game. Whether it is competitive or hobby or whatever. I like all aspects of it. I will tell people when the lists they show have issues, but I try not give into calling anyone fail, especially a tournament in its first year. Yes there were some issues, but again this is a first time tournament and there will always be growing pains. Nothing is exactly correct. The big thing is, that we have another event in which to play on a "national" level with people we would not normally play.
The prize support, the overall vibe of the event, everything was great for a first time. Next year will be much better with the hope of more players, more prizes, and bigger and better events.
Oh, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings KE. I didn't know "jumping down your throat" would have such an impact in your life. I don't know if you realize it or not but you came across as an arrogant condescending asshole in that post.
As for your list building abilities....anyone can cut and paste SPAM.
Have fun showing 12 year olds how to build cut and paste lists.
I posted a followup here.
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/08/yeesh.html
@Praetorian
I (and anyone else genuinely interested in competitive play) would rather play against a good cut-and-paste internet list than the usual garbage people bring to tournaments any day of the week.
And if anyone can cut and paste spam then why do people show up with trash and then complain about losing? You greatly overestimate the typical 40k player.
"I don't know if you realize it or not but you came across as an arrogant condescending asshole in that post."
Echo that. With a bit of "idiot sauce" added to the mix, for spouting off about soft scores without knowing the scoring system.
Occasionally you make some decent points, like "how the heck did that Ork army win", which I said on the BOLS site. There are reasonable comments and questions to put out there. "This is fail, that is fail" is reasonable only for an arrogant condescending idiot. Anyone can type that, while it takes some intelligence to actually write WHY something is "fail". So, sticking to such lame internet lingo as the only explanation, is the refuge of the incompetent. IOW, back up your statements with real reasoning or look like a fool.
As for the armies... I'm still in shock that the Nid and Ork armies went in the top 2. Granted, I have a higher opinion of both Nids and Orks, and I do think that I can reasonably see some Ork and Nid lists that could go 1-2 in a tournament, especially one with lots of terrain and some point bonuses for having units on foot. But not those lists. Anyone winning top scores with those "please table me now" lists is some kind of general.
Sorin/Sly:
I'm confused. Essentially, you agree with me then?
I think 22 points for having 3 colours is stupid soft scoring, even if it doesn't affect who wins when only 2 players fail to achieve that basic standard.
Having more points for ego purposes isn't necessarily better.
As for CRP...
You didn't hurt my feelings, you just ruined any chance you had of being considered a reasonable human being by me. You may think you're not interested in my opinion of you...but if that were actually true then you wouldn't react the way you do. Hell, you didn't even realise I was being sarcastic when I asked for inmstructions on how to make your Hydra conversion! Just because I think it looks good, doesn't mean I'm not a good enough modeller to have come up with the idea alone, or to know how to do something as simple as a head swap. lol
I like to think I go into detail in explaining choices in my army list building - teaching people the principles of good list construction so they can do thier own IF THEY PREFER. I know from my experience of TCGs that a LOT| of players don't like to make their own decks, preferring to copy, and then concentrate all their time on learning that deck, focusing all their intellect on the skill element, I imagine some 40k players are the same.
If any of them copy my lists, I'm flattered! I'm certainly not the best list builder in the world, but I do my best, and I'm not arrogant enough to think I can't improve.
Goatboy: Nice of you to participate, welcome to MWFTW. :)
Same to you Danny, since I think that may be your first comment here too...:)
*sigh* another intarwebs shitstorm. While I do respect King Elessar, I don't really think your post needed as much vitriol, piss and vinegar as were in there.
I often feel the same way about Stelek, honestly. I can do without hearing and/or reading the f-bomb.
I was suprised that BoLS con finalists went the way they did. Luck, and skill can do wonders over a weekend. I think that perhaps with the way the tourney was set, (with 7 games over 2 days) perhaps mental stamina played a part as well.
I think Jwolf, Goatboy, and the other FlyLords TRIED to present the best weekend they could. I was impressed by what I've seen of what they put together. I congratulate them.
no event is going to be the end-all-be-all panacea. There are always going to be people who show up, or don't show up, and cry 'fail'.
Elessar, I appreciate your being willing to talk with Jwolf, and Goatboy. I would bet that if most of the bloggers out there could actually get together, and have a beer over a game of toy soldiers, we'd all understand better that everyone plays the game for a different reason.
some like slaughter, I like to play with my food.
I WAS willing to talk to mkerr too, until he basically said I was what was wrong with the game. Hard to keep any respect for someone who says that.
I suppose it doesn't come across that I respect the fact that they even tried to put this together, nevermind made it as much off a success as it is. The problem is that I don't consider the results representative of how 5th Edition should be played competitively, while people will (and sadly, you know it's true) use it as 'evidence' that there are no better lists in 40k.
Maybe people don't realise I always assume a stranger will be as good as me, if not better, until I have reason to believe otherwise...a lot of players seem to think they will be better than the opponent by default and can therefore win with anything.
Perhaps I should put more effort into defining what I think is required for a Tournament that only cares about competitiveness.
Do any of you think that would help clarify the issue?
I can't promise it won't take me a while to do, however.
King_Lameass, I really don't care what you think of me. I generally don't care for people that look down their noses at others. I'd much rather be a decent human being than a reasonable one. However, you made an obvious attack on me and I responded.
In regards to my offer of instructions on how to build my Hydra conversion, I responded as some one willing to help another player in the spirit of the hobby. You chose to mock me for it. What kid of human being does that make you?
As far, as the cut and paste list building goes, I prefer not to play the same list over and over until I puke. I play this game for fun and in my opinion that isn't fun. Cut and paste adds to the stagnation of the game. I think that is part of the reason for the results at BoLScon. People expected certain lists and when they played something else it threw them a little. I think the SPAM players are in for a wake up call in the next year or so. It should be interesting.
Why do you think that?
Do you think Tourny results will in some way prove their lists to be inferior to Battleforces?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be offensive.
While I'd never criticise someone fro playing for fun, or their opinion of what they get fun from, I don't think that your definition of fun should be important to a tournament organiser. I think Tournaments should focus entirely on the Competition - and, contrary to popular internet belief, it's possible to be competitive without cheating, or being a shithead.
As far as personality traits etc, I don't think it's possible to be a decent human being without being a reasonable one. I'm honestly surprised you disagree. I'm surprised any time someone in the Western World evinces what I consider a backward notion, and not being reasonable is (without saying you are) something that leads naturally to bigotry.
"I think the SPAM players are in for a wake up call in the next year or so. It should be interesting."
Unless 6th edition comes out and massively overhauls the force organization chart system, your prediction is going to fall flat on its face.
"Perhaps I should put more effort into defining what I think is required for a Tournament that only cares about competitiveness.
Do any of you think that would help clarify the issue?
I can't promise it won't take me a while to do, however."
I think defining your hopes helps everyone.... ok, except blogoweb flametrolls.
I used to think the US 'ard boys tourney was a competitive one, until they screwed up the missions. big time.
Why couldn't they have done combinations of missions from the BRB, maybe even two mission types tied together?
I do agree that you should bring at least 3colors on your tourney army. it's not THAT hard. then have a paint contest for all the people that WANT to expend effort painting, but make that a seperate event.
Wow, what a thread. This is the first and will be the last time I check this one out. As mentioned you have the right to disagree, question and critisize but come on. Use language like a mature and educated person. I too don't need to read cuss words and fail. The word fail is not an argument and doesn't give insight into or support your opinion. It does not promote a reasonable discussion that we can all benefit from.
Then all this talk about respect. Respect needs to be earned not given by default, beyond that of treating a human being curteously.
I think the people at BoLs rock, simply because of their passion for the game, the extra and high quality supplements they provide and the matureness and dedication with which they approach the community. Their reactions on this thread support that.
I would like painting scores to be more accurate though. I will never paint good enough to win golden deamon but I do put in a lot of effort and hours, getting the same score as someone who simply basecoated, drybrushed and detailed doesn't sit well with me.
The last thing I'd like to say is this. Tournaments, although a competition, are not played by everyone to win. I only have 1 regular opponent in my area so I enter tourneys to have a marathon weekend of gaming against new people with different lists and tactics. So I wont win, big deal I already did once many years ago, been there done that, now I just want to meet new people and have fun.
I certainly love their passion for the game. Indeed, if I didn't share it, I wouldn't have posted on the issue, or even have a blog.
Going to a Tournament to meet people is something I can understand, but nonetheless, I think they should either be all out Competitive, or a pure hobby event, such as a narrative campaign.
Achieving neither is good for no-one, IMO. It's fine when people don't try and claim that this isn't a one-off more to do with the winners knowing their lists than having good armies.
"Achieving neither is good for no-one, IMO. "
Except they did achieve both? I swore I wouldn't comment because I LOVE trolling away to make people mad as much as the next 4Chan user, but at least have some semblance of coherency. You weren't there, you dont know what tactics people used on the missions, and you keep forgetting that 7 games makes a huge difference! the top player had 50 MORE battle points than 2nd. I think he went something like 6-1 or 5-1-1 (I forgot the real numbers, but he was with out a doubt the winner)
That is something of a rarity in the world.
Why bitch about something that is good for the game? Seriously, why? Its ok to have your point of view, and this is your own little mirror to shout at, but ask yourself if lambasting people who DID do something awesome is the best thing for people's image of you and your writings. Sure, you can claim you don't care what people think all day long, but if that were true you wouldn't have comments nor would you respond.
I hope someday you realize that there is no one true way for 40K. To think, believe, or claim otherwise is a joke. JWolf proved that with his brick in the face for Fritz and JawaBalls, and they were big enough men to admit they saw something new and magical that weekend.
(exhales slowly....)
WOO! That was some GREAT restraint...
TKE I’m actually disappointed in you. While I generally agree with most of what you say and frankly am ok with rare outbursts or profanity, I think the way you led this off was weak. I’m sure you noticed the difference in conversation that ensued later in the comments when you began writing like you normally do (i.e. not full of vitriol). As I generally enjoy your points of view and am interested in having real conversations about this topic I would hope that you would err on the side of politeness as you will much more successfully advance the debate in this fashion.
Not to harp on it, but the OP just isn’t like you and doesn’t seem to fit? Was it more an attempt at “shock jocking” to get the conversation started?
All the optimization in the world can mean nothing when it comes to player skill.
I have seen armies that I thought had no chance, like stealer shock destroy a mech IG and almost dismantle mech eldar.
You can only preach as much as you can on the net on what works and what doesnt but if those people dont know how to properly play, its just as bad as taking an all grot army.
I prepared this comment before the last two were posted, but computer Fail prevented me posting.
Remarks are therefore aimed at Angel, primarily.
"I don't care what CRP thinks. People who can argue properly I care about listening to. You fall in that category.
The Battle Points system says 50 isn't as many as it sounds and, IMO, should be.
JWolf may be the best player in the world...but he didn't play - as far as I can see from here based on the only evidence I have, most good competitive players seemed to stay away, for whatever reason.
Good as the winner doubtless is with that list, it doesn't mean that, for example, Danny Internets, wouldn't have beaten him. In fact, Fritz didn't play the main event - if he had, I imagine he could have beaten the Nid player.
The game the Nid player lost, he REALLY lost, that was one example that perfectly illustrates what would have happened the second time, had he not been a better player than the Mr. Anger. He pretty much got tabled - that, for me, is the highlight, because it's how I hoped the whole event would go - strong lists beating down weak ones like some sort of Halo Juggernaught mode.
Overall, I don't think better players suing weaker lists to win is good for the game, because, as I said about JWolf's list, people picking the game up can't instalearn tactics and experience. They see a list like that and think it's good for them to use it because someone they've heard on teh interwebs is good, either thorough titles, or in general, and so they assume they will beat face against their noob friends with non-optimal lists. They will then get tanked by a decent player, who, if he's a jerk, or the kid is just immature, could see them quit the hobby - and that's our fault, for not having dissenting opinion."
@theHod - certainly true. I try to always offer tactical advice with lists, although when it becomes a dialogue I do a lot less, because I know the capabilities of the person the list is primarily for better by that stage.
@Slate Blank: Not to say that IS what I was doing, but it wouldn't have been the first time if so.
Maybe its me but every time I beat someone and they ask what they could have done better, I tell them that they need this in their list to make it better. The next tournament I see that unit or options I suggested.
Some people need 1st hand experience to see how things work. Much like my experience with Swooping Hawks thinking I can haywire landraiders but as I learned in early 5th, does not work out.
Do you have any suggestions of how that could be better conveyed in this format?
Everything I tell people with regards to units being fail is obvious to me, either because I've played with or against them extensively (often both, tbh) or occassionally just because it's obvious (Ogyrns, Spawn, Scourges etc etc) - It would be cumbersome at best to try and list instances of Fail by the units I'm discussing...
@TKE: "I WAS willing to talk to mkerr too, until he basically said I was what was wrong with the game. Hard to keep any respect for someone who says that."
When did I say that? I'm not aware of any impact you've had on the hobby; good or bad.
But I agree that it is hard to respect someone that attacks without thinking.
Like, for example, attacking an event that you didn't go to with a lot of incorrect, third-hand accusations.
And, no. Nowhere in your "Balls-Con was fail" post did it come across that you respect the fact we put together the event. Was it before or after saying that another event "cannot possibly be worse than Balls-Con"?
I haven't seen a single negative comment about BOLSCON from a person who went to it. Not a single one. I've seen a bunch from people who didn't.
So why don't try something new instead of spreading hate and vitriol? Try to improve the hobby in some way instead of attacking people who work their asses off to make it better.
@TKE: "JWolf may be the best player in the world...but he didn't play - as far as I can see from here based on the only evidence I have, most good competitive players seemed to stay away, for whatever reason."
That's just it. You don't have any evidence. You are basing that on the lists that won 1st and 2nd place.
How about instead of inferring that "competitive players stayed away", you infer that the players that won were competitive but just more skilled and lucky than their opponents.
Or how about taking it from people like JWolf, Bigred and Goatboy (who are competitive and have won or placed highly in national tournaments) that the above is the case?
Why jump to the completely illogical "there were only crap players" theory?
I was there every minute of the event. There were very competitive lists, played by very competitive players. They just got beat.
The fact that strong, veteran players won an event with lists that weren't "optimized by internet standards" shouldn't threaten you. It happens.
Move on.
Post a Comment