Quote:
Originally Posted by daelrog  Guy- "Hey, have ever been to Jaimaca?"
Girl- "What?"
Guy- "Cause Ja-Make-Me-Hot" |
How dare you make that horrible joke?! Ja makin me crazy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJim The one thing that bugs me about people defending the powerbuild style play is that simply dont listen, i think i have said it has nothing to do with losing by turn 3 or even losing at all, its simply about enjoyment of the game. You may find enjoyment usinf a skaven SAD list i simply cant enjoy playing it, it dosnt matter if i win or lose, 9/10 times im bored within a few turns. i already explained this earlier, its about the effect on the game style, it changes from a tactical game of chess to charge forward as quickly as i can like a mindless idiot, yeah great! what a great way to spend two hours |
Sure, but you could make a powerbuild army that IS fun to play as, or fun to play against. Just because that army is bad doesn't mean ALL power armies are bad. Again, it seems like you're taking one example of a bad list and applying it to everyone who tries to build the most effective army they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJim Again this is the assumption that if i make a character army it is instantly weak, perhaps compared to a he army with a star dragon and dragon mage or even Karl franz and stanks. |
I said nothing of the sort; only that an army built with style primarily in mind MAY not be as powerful as an army built with power primarily in mind. In the same vein, someone who plays their army in character (roleplays it) probably wouldn't perform as well as someone who is playing to win. That doesn't mean that either way is better than the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJim I think my main gripe with waac is really the effect on my game, the problem is that when they start to mingle into say your local GW they start to push the power level up, before long everyone is playing at this level because of one guy, great fun! |
It sounds like you're in the minority then. If people didn't enjoy playing at this level, why would they? They could just choose not to play the powergamer unless he starts to play the way they do, or only use their power lists against other power lists and also play less competitive games with other lists. You can't blame one person, or even a small group of people, for corrupting the rest of the players. If they didn't also want to play that way, they wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJim You might think their is more to learn but i have learnt a thing when playing gunlines, i personally find i learn more using a weaker list and beating more powerful lists than using a OTT list. |
I actually meant more or less the same thing you're saying here, that playing AGAINST a strong list can give you great oppurtunity to learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJim I personally think its a misconception that because i dont use 100 hand gunners, 4 great cannons 4 wizards, two stanks i dont want to win or perhaps Karl Franz + dragon, 2 stanks, 30 handgunner 2 wizards and some great cannons. While i like winning i like to feel i earned it, i just wouldnt feel that way with either of those lists, i also like to see the board filled with troops (and i love the chaos warriors models, the best so far  ) |
I actually feel the same way. But isn't it arrogant to fault others for feeling differently? If, for example, someone only wants to play the Franz/dragon/stank army because it gives them the best chance of winning, so what? To me, it's just another challenge to fight against, and winning becomes all the sweeter. And if you simply don't enjoy playing against those armies, no one is saying that you have to! But it's something which is within the rules, and which can be defeated. Who are we to declare this person or their army cheezy just because they enjoy playing the game differently than we do? If we choose to play the 'weaker' lists, what gives us the right to be angry with others for not choosing a similar handicap?