Thursday, 18 March 2010

I Can Has Cheating?

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/03/40k-tactics-metagame-expect-unexpected.html

Very funny discussion. Many many cookies to a bunch of folks, but Chumbyala is currently winning the internet, in my mind. I'd like to think I'm pretty close behind...coming in last is elbrop. Nah, he's not last. The article author is the only one who fails at playing fair AND at replying to comments.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jesus man I thought we were friends

Winterous said...

@Anonymoose
What do you mean?

And nice Elessar (where the fuck did that name come from anyway?), you showed them what-for.
I agree that list tailoring is cheating, but this 'meta game' they're speaking of is an interesting twist for an agreed upon thing, you just have to set boundaries.

For example, if you were playing a campaign game, you are restricted to the army you've chosen obviously, and if a Chaos force you could be restricted to not using certain units.
This allows you to completely re-tool your list for every mission, depending upon the terrain, objective style, and what you think your enemy might use.


Also a point of correction.
"but when you don't speak out you actively ENDORSE his opinion."
It's not ACTIVELY endorsing it, it's passively endorsing it, active means taking an action, and the point is that you aren't taking an action.

Chumbalaya said...

Woo, go me!

SandWyrm said...

Yeah, go you!

Somebody had to. :)

Winterous said...

OH GOD YOUR AVATAR IS WABBUFET BUT IT'S BOBA-FETT AAAAAAARGH!

Unknown said...

Got to agree; list tailoring is cheating as you're making your list stronger and have the ability to deal with one particular opponent only. You've got your army all sorted just to take out one opponent's army, more or less any way.

Cyklown said...

I'd weigh in, but I'm used to going to every tournament having sat out with my friends calculating the meta with 15 cards to SB in for games 2 and 3, so...
My sense of fair is not calbrated properly for this argument. :P

TheKing Elessar said...

LMAO.

If I had a sideboard for 40k, I'd use Striking Scorpions. (Hello shitty Orks, I won't need Dragons today, so... "Striking Scorpion, I choose you!")

Cyklown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cyklown said...

Either I need to learn to proofread or blogger needs to start allowing edits.

Cyklown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cyklown said...

Fuck YEAH.

And you could side in Swooping Hawks when you wanted to make a point without actually, say, directly commenting on the rich, sensual and ultimately quite rewarding relationship you are having with your opponent's mother.

It's like trash-talking if they gave you comp points (yuck, comp points) for doing it rather than docking you sportsmanship points.






note:
Third try. This time I was just being anal about pronouns.

Winterous said...

You aren't actually logged in, so that might be why you can't edit.

TheKing Elessar said...

No, he wanted to edit comments - not even I can do that. :(

Anonymous said...

The only time I have tailored is among friends when we are both creating army lists on the spot, with both sides having knowledge of the other player's army but not the list. Even this level of tailoring seems lame to me know on reflection, I think all lists should be all-comers.

Disclaimer.

Primarily, a blog to discuss the Games Workshop system Warhammer 40k, though not exclusively so. All GW IP used without permission, no challenge intended.

Pretty much everything here is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you are welcomed to say so. If you don't like me, but like my opinion, feel free to say so. If you don't like me or my opinion, I don't need to hear it. Why even visit?