Tarrin does not appear to be the regular fluff nazi, hell fluff isn't mentioned at all. He's complaining about 'spam', yet he has a very competitive attitude towards ramming wins down his opponents' throats. So what is Tarrin? Fluffy? Competitive? Both? Neither?
Then we get onto the subject matter. Thousand sons are beauties to behold. That amazing Egyptian symbology has come very close to making me part with my money many times. Am I glad I didn't part with my hard-earned cash? Hell yeah. These guys are complete fail. If I ever saw one in a tournament I'd be shocked beyond belief. Is this sad? Yes. Is it fact? Yes.
I'll only address the first post as I think some of the guys sent it on to Dethtron and I could never live up to his level of wit and wouldn't want to elbow in on his territory. Although I would love to start up Monday Afternoon Forum Scufflegroup, but like me, I don't think it could ever compete. Love you Deth.
"There is nothing nicer than turning up to a tournament and seeing something else on the table other than the usual suspects. Every codex has a wide range of entries yet you often see the same units on show again and again. I imagine that, like me you get exceptionally bored of reading “Ard Boyz” lists which are themed on the same spammed tank, or set combo that is a game breaker. YAWN!"
The first sentence is all well and good for me. I'm somebody that does like to see something a little different on the table, but I understand why I do not and would never complain about somebody else's choice in a competitive list. You're at a tournament. There are many aspects to 'generalship' that start at your selection of codex and list. If list building wasn't a part of 40k, we would be painting pretty plastic men and playing chess. Please understand the game you play.
I'm not bored of reading, “Ard Boyz” lists that include a "combo that is a game breaker." Why? Because they don't exist. There is not a single unit or unit combination in 40k that 'breaks the game'. There are some strong units. There are some nice unit combinations. But game-breaking. *FACEPALM* Please understand, 5e codices are very well balanced. Codex creep no longer exists. Yes, some older codices are no longer truly 'competitive', but that is because they were made for a different game. Fourth Edition. You did know that was a different game right?
Tangent (feel free to skip): I spoke to a couple of guys at my local game store today and asked them what they thought of this exact topic. They did also believe that codex creep still existed and when I asked them what codex was most 'over-powered', they replied with Tyranids and IG. Here we had 2 well read, veteran players, that have a wealth of experience in many different gaming systems, thinking that codices 2 and 4 releases old being 'best' counts as 'codex creep'. What about Blood Angels? What about Dark Eldar? I like these guys, but I really do not get this mentality. I won't say which units one of them felt where the most 'broken'.
"Well this thread seeks to redress the balance."
I hope you're listening GW. Here is where you were going wrong.
"I will almost guarantee that we all have minis that sit on the shelf, gathering dust. Minis that we have paid good money for but just aren’t “flavour of the month”."
Nope. I DO play for 'fun' and I DO take whatever unit I want on occasion, even my Black Templar assault marines, and we all know how terrible they are. Don't get me wrong, I don't take them to tournaments, and if I did I would know what to expect and wouldn't complain when they fail badly. It takes a good general to know which units are good and which are bad, which units work well together and which don't. If every unit worked equally well together, again, we'd be playing chess. It's sad that some units are not as viable as others or not viable at all, but that's what games outside of tournament settings are all about. When I play football at the park, I don't treat it like the World Cup final. I try stupid tricks that I can't pull off and am more than happy to lose if it was a laugh. When I play in a league game, if I pulled the same crap, my team wouldn't be happy.
"It is true that some units point for point are better than others, or that some units do have rules that make them hard to use, however I am a great believer that ALL units have their place on the table, and that you can take any unit and wield it effectively even under tournament conditions. For me personally, part of the fun of playing 40k is beating someone with an army that, on paper, should never be used. To take a sub-optimal unit and ram it down someone’s throat when they least expect it."
So all units do have a place in competitive games? But what about codex creep? Said units DO have a place on a tournament table. It's called the bottom table. Or if you're a super good general, then you may reach the middle rung and if you do, be proud of it. People that take these units are usually hoping for soft scores to boost their standings and I won't open that can of worms, but I'm sure most of you know my opinion on it. What I don't like and don't understand is the final sentence. Built-up rage much? This is the attitude I expect from the tournament asshat. He's the aggressive player, that bully's his opponent into a result and is the first to laugh in opponent's face when something goes his way and call WAAC when it doesn't. I don't enjoy playing these guys.
"So I will set you a challenge.
1: Read the discussion on the unit selected in this thread.
2: Contribute your own views on how they can be used effectively.
And here is the novel bit.
3: Volunteer to take the unit to your next game, or even better tournament, and use them, using the suggestions of the community.
4: Report back."
1. Have done. I almost gave myself a headache with the number of times I facepalmed. Honestly. Or maybe that was the alcohol or reading Kirby's thesis. Screw you!
2. As they can't be used effectively I steered clear of commenting. I wish there was a troll somewhere deep inside me. Maybe I'd be more fun?
3. Playing games with units you like is novel? Really? Interesting.
4. I played a game with a unit I like and had fun. Thanks, you've changed my world. You're my saviour! Can you make a blog (preferably called 1Ksons are the new black) so I can not post on there too?
5. Screw you. We DO have fun in many different ways. I'd suggest you go and read MVB's post on social contracts.
"Rules:
I: Be sensible: Any posts of the nature “don’t bother with this unit, take X, Y is a better choice, will be frowned upon. This is a discussion on that particular unit.
II: Be brave: it’s only a game, and don’t be afraid of rebelling against the accepted rules of 40k society.
III: Be honest: Actual reports are better than falsifications."
Since when did some internet personality need to tell us we need rules to have a discussion? How old am I? 27 (wrong again Kirby ;)) That's right, we're not 5. We can discuss things correctly if YOU treat us with the respect that you wish to be shown in return. You do realise that when you post such rules people do aim to break them.
I: So you're taking the unit anyway, why discuss it? Not really sure what you're discussing. Is this about a list around 1K sons or just 1K sons? This isn't clear. Maybe you want a list that is purely 1K sons or purely Tzeentch, but you still haven't told us what you would like.
II: Do you mean cheat? Taking 1K sons is not breaking the rules. You do realise that right?
III. If I was honest I'd break 'rule I' so I'll keep quiet.
So, what sort of player is Tarrins and what is he looking for? Please help because I don't understand.
Here are the rules:
I: Don't troll 40kOnline
II: Don't abuse Tarrins
III: Don't use 1K Sons if you want to 'compete'
IV: Crap. You're just going to ignore these aren't you.
Before you ask, Genestealers and BA Librarian Dreadnoughts. Honest.
