Black matt Rants

The video is a little rant that I had after my game with Andy!!!  I made it because after our game I immediately thought about what I was trying to write about last week!


  Any comment that does not deal directly with  a discussion about the virtues or faults of a "flat army list," tournament will be deleted.  I needed the hype before so I stoked the flames of fools, but I will not tolerate bullshit when it does not serve my purpose.  Your comments will be deleted if you say something harsh.  I dont want your criticism so dont, "be honest."



19 comments:

AutarchAndrew said...

your list was aright.Thunderwolves are kind of a glass hammer thats why I dont play them.if you wheant for straight razorwolves you should have one

Heretic said...

Evenly matched armies do make for a better game on the table top, but it doesn't necessarily mean an equal enjoyment of the hobby as a whole. Some people may enjoy taking an army based on a specific group's stories and what makes up those armies in the storyline of 40k. These may not be the best armies, but may bring their owner more enjoyment through playing an army whose story they love rather than an army that has table top power and little to no story. It leads to mismatched power levels, but it also gives people a chance to be more inventive with their army. More competitive players may enjoy playing with and "inferior" army just to see if their skill can bring them on par with their peers playing more optimized armies. In the end it's up to the player for me.

Aldonis said...

LOL - love the fact you are using Stelek for publicity. Like him or not - he does draw the hobbyist attention.

The only element I see missing from the "flat army" idea is the General. Certain people can take armies that are weak to mediocre for most people - and in their hands are brutal. An example is the Marine Biker army. I'm working one - but at present I'm mediocre with it. My buddy Sabote plays a similar army and has an incredible won/lost record - including just winning a big tournament in Switzerland. Too much meta-gaming/net-listing sets people up for problems when they run into someone who can win without the big hitter lists.

Anyways - still wish you'd have tabled Stelek! Peace out man!

VT2 said...

So what's preventing a power army from having a story?

Heretic said...

@VT2 Nothing prevents it, I just haven't seen it happen. Then again, I haven't seen all that many armies that I would consider being built for winning more than fun. Mainly it's my reaction to seeing people play armies that even they hate just to win.

Black Matt said...

Awesome, thanks guys for staying on topic. @heretic
Would your viewpoint come from more of a fluff or hobby standpoint. I personally love both. The only way I see a flat army list not giving people what they want is when it comes to fluff. If you wanna play possessed as possessed because of fluff, you would be out if luck. From the modeling stand point, you could build your army however you see fit with counts as armies. It's what I did this last tourney.

VT2 said...

I've never heard of anyone playing an army they hate.
It just doesn't work like that.

If you don't like space wolves, you're not gonna call them space wolves, but iron hands, space snakes, or whatever.
Rules are just rules, and models are just models.

Old Shatter Hands said...

Everyone playing the same army list is the only to find out who is the best tactician...but I don't know if that's what 40k tournaments are all about. They're a combination of a number of objectives, seeing who wins, seeing what lists win, getting to play against lots of different types of armies, getting to see lots of different painting, socializing, learning about your army, etc. List building is such a big part of 40k that removing it from the tournament scene would remove part of the essence of 40k. If you want true and equal competition, 40k's a bad game for it. If you want fun, cool armies, different flavors of lists and seeing what all those crazy players can come up with, 40k is for you.

I go to tournaments and I want to see if I can make my Tau win, I also want to show off the army, paint-job and list, I worked hard to create.

Play to win, but have fun either way.

Black Matt said...

@old shater
I don't think this type of tournament will EVER happen and you are right. I just want it discussed
:)

HuronBH said...

And why not. I suggest you set it up, use a panel of people to write the list, Stelek, Mike Brandt, Dash, Fritz, whoever and put it out there. Give it a good 8 Months advanced time so people can build and customize the models they are going to use for the list. Then have them throw down. If no one shows, well crap no one showed but you tried. If lots of people show, bang, new yearly tournament format. Make sure to have lots of prizes for creativity on what players come up with to represent the different choices in the army.

I think this would be a pretty interesting event as it would take one side completely out of preparing for a tournament, creating a list, and add in a whole new element most people don't have time for, thinking out side the box for new ways to use what you have.

I think this is a great tournament idea and would work well as a day before style event in a larger weekend of tournaments. You just needs someone with the Balls to step up and do it. I'd suggest talking to Mike and seeing if there is room in the Open's schedule for this sort of event. God knows I am going to want to play in it.

Heretic said...

@ VT2 I swear to the Emperor that I've seen it. This last Saturday at a tournament one of my friends told some of us that the army represented all he hated about 40k.

@ Matt
It comes down to unit choice both for fluff and modeling reasons. I used to not run kroot in my tau army because I hate the models. Now I run them, but I use catachans as kroot because I enjoy the fluff of gue'vesa and the models of catachans more. But Instead, let's say I love running Farsight or DC Tycho for whatever reason. If they aren't in the flat army list, I can't run them and I lose some of my enjoyment of the tournament.

@ OSH I'm with you on tournaments being a conglomeration of all the aspects of the hobby. I know it's been said before, but there are better judges of tactical prowess e.g. chess. I love chess as a mental game, but it just doesn't have the "cool" that 40k does.

bkbutlerme said...

Speaking of needing a painter - I saw this real interesting guy using a real crappy Tau army at BFS. Maybe he can search you up at Stelek's YYTH and get you a comission? People who know me know I'll paint for food, but I never paint for free...

breng77 said...

After last weekend I cannot honestly say that it is "the player who makes the list". Just look at the top tables at BFS. As I walked by them on Saturday night, it was more or less all Guard, SW and Blood angels. I'm am not saying that the players of these armies were not good players, only that they were good players who brought lists that were stronger than those presented in other codices. When 2 players are equal whoever, has a better list and better luck will win.

Flekkzo said...

I think there is a little confusion to what a fluffy list is. Sometimes it seems like the goal is suppose to pick one of each. Who fight wars where they don't "spam". No general, we already have an Abrams. We need a fast attack too!

Themed lists are a different matter. I like having a theme of some sort.

Flat lists have one interesting point of failure, it would only prove who is the best at winning with that one particular list. Ergo, the list is still important for someones chances, but not in terms of how über it is.

I simply feel that you gain so much less than you loose. If you want a full on, skill only, game I suggest go or chess:)

So, I would propose a different solution. Have each match consist of two games. First you play the normal way, then you switch sides and play again. And yes, it would include playing your opponents army:)

Good or bad idea?

Messanger of Death said...

@ Flekkzo - playing with the other guy's (or girl's) list wont work.

It will just magnitude the inexperience of some players. For example, I only have Black Templars. So my experience as a general is playing with Space Marines. Kirby on the other hand has experience with several different codices... including Tau.

If we got paired off I would be completely and utterly ducked. Because once we switch armies I will be at a complete loss on things like deployment...

If your suggestion became the norm it would force competitive players to learn how to USE other codices... and with 5th Edition codices it would mean different variations within each codex.

On the up side it may help Necron players.

Messanger

VT2 said...

That's a great idea for a tournament.
You can play my delicate MSU marines, and I get your rock orks, with the n00b bikers.
Once I ram my own army - which just destroyed yours effortlessly with maneuvering - you won't be able to cry cheese at all, abd I can say 'go play more. Maybe then you wouldn't lose so hard to everything.'

Black Matt said...

@huronn
I seriously have no interest in running an event. It's literally just an idea. I don't want anything out of it. I'm cashing out as it is!

Black Matt said...

@flekkzo
That's an equally interesting idea. Same as the flat army idea, I don't thinkin would work outside of a group of dedicated friends. Good idea!

Da Warboss said...

As was said, Chess is probably a safer bet if you want 'fair' games. Why WOULD you want it? Is it not better to crush a foe who thinks he has the superior skillz/army?