3++ around the Web; What is 3++ about?

Recently there have been a bunch of links on other sites like Tyranid Hive-Mind, the-Waaaagh and Giant in the Playground and for the most part these links haven’t understood 3++ at all. So thanks for the hits and that’s about it. So before we re-look at 3++ and what it does, let’s just put a thank you out to the guys over at the-Waaaagh; when you were told it wasn’t me you were bashing and fester actually came in and talked to you, you didn’t continue flaming and trolling so kudos to you. Anyway, what I'm doing with this post is re-iterating a few things about 3++ (which you can find in the About page but I'm expanding upon here). At the end I pick a few comments out and reply directly to them in relation to 3++/gaming but I want this to be more of a ...I don't know maybe a clearing of the waters? I guess I'm not appreciative of individuals coming here, reading a couple of articles and making assumptions about me, my authors (yes you are mine :)) and the blog in general. If you've read a bunch of articles from all the authors and disagree with us, that's fine but the majority of these new links seem to have not done this which I will flesh out below.

3++ is a competitive blog. That’s a well-known fact and what we aim to do here as a collective group of authors is improve everyone’s game. Do we think you HAVE to play this way? No (well Vt2 does but the rest of us don’t :P). Does that mean 3++ is useless to you? No. You can still learn list-building and tactics here and apply them to non-optimised armies. You can e-mail in or ask questions saying you don’t want to be uber-competitive, etc. and guess what? You get a response because 3++ isn’t about winning, it’s about playing the game to the best of your abilities. A bunch of us here play in comp’d environments or use armies with fun/giggly units because unlike what some people think, we aren’t “ramming mech down people’s throats.” Furthermore, thanks to authors like Roland, Rupert and Koopa there's an increasing amount of hobby articles which have spurned the creation of a new page (in progress). These clearly aren't competitive oriented articles. 3++ is not forcing competition on you but it does have a competitive focus. See the difference?.

3++ has multiple authors. I know it’s hard to understand but this means there are different viewpoints and there are author bylines at the beginning of each post in big(ish) text to make it clear whom is posting. Kind of important those bylines. If you assume everything is written by the same person, ya 3++ is going to seem confusing because we all have different opinions and we will disagree. That’s part of why I really like 3++ (other than making it and putting in lots of effort), a reader can come here and get competitive oriented views but across a wide-spectrum. This generates discussion which promotes learning. Combined with the above sentiment of 3++ not being “only competitive, everyone else GTFO” and 3++ IMO provides for everyone on some level. This is not to say myself or the other authors are infallible. We’ve made mistakes (my biggest one was ‘hiring’ Taak and Vt2! Zing) and will make them again and we expect you to call us out on them appropriately.

Finally, these are classic examples of why 3++ dislikes forums and the attitude of some blogs over the past few years (e-drama). We’re all in this together and whilst people are going to disagree with the views held on this site and our analysis, that’s fine; don’t trash what we are doing though unless we start to deliberately mislead the community and basically become a cesspit of false information, egos and generally crap. If you want to disagree with us, go for it but do so with content please. This leads to discussions which leads to learning for everyone rather than bruised egos and wasted cyberspace.

And now let’s look at a few specific comments and reply in relation to 40k. This is me responding to their posts and querying for clarification.

@Klose_the_Sith from Giant in the Playground: You referenced only Vt2’s articles and called Fire Warriors bad as counter intuitive. Let’s play mathammer:

120 points of FW MEQ kills at range: 1.33
120 points of FW MEQ kills at rapid fire: 2.67
119 points of Kroot MEQ kills at range: 1.4167
119 points of Kroot MEQ kills at rapid fire: 2.83

So a shooting unit is out-performed in shooting by less points of a ‘combat unit?’ That’s counter-intuitive and that’s not even including the bonus Kroot get from infiltrate, field craft and being designed as combat stoppers compared to FW having extra range, needing a transport, etc. Please explain why you believe FW are good if calling them bad is counter-intuitive.

Then there was this…

“I think the strangest thing about this blog is how hell-bent it is on subverting the forums themselves (perpetual barrage of the word 'forumitis') whilst it falls into the homogeny that they perpetuate (every list is about mechanised firepower, all the time and no infantry are gonna do anything, ever).”

Blood Angels Blood Rodeo, Jumpers, Bloodhammer, Bloodwing, Space Wolves TWC, Loganwing, Hybrid Mech, Tau Hybrid, Hybrid IG, Vanilla Bikers, DE WWP and all Tyranid lists are examples of lists which are not pure mech and which work well (the DE one is coming). All of them are on this blog. So ya, I don’t like forums. Is it hard to see why when you call out 3++ yet only reference one author’s articles and miss a vast majority of the points of the blog? Mech is good in 5th edition but it doesn't mean Mech is the only way. I've never said this. Ever. Some armies are simply designed to do Mech and only Mech (i.e. Witchunters w/o IG allies, Eldar and Vanilla Marines outside of Bikes, etc.) whilst other armies are only designed to do foot and only foot (i.e. Tyranids). There are advantages and disadvantages to going Hybrid or pure foot but that doesn't mean they are terrible and you should always go mech. Again, I reference the above lists and point out I've never, ever said Mech is the only way. I'll also reference my armies, only two are pure mech (Eldar and SM) out of ~9-10. I should also reply to Nathan's article about mech one day...lol.

In regards to “"troops are useless in fifth edition" and "you only ever need to cap one objective" started being paraded out” again that was Vt2 but was in clear reference to Tau. Unless you want to use FW in Devilfish (which are very expensive yet nowhere near as effective as say Tacs in Rhinos, Vets in Chimeras, Jumper BA, DE Warriors, etc) Tau really need to focus on holding a single objective and stopping their opponent from taking the rest. They have the firepower to do this. I think this needs another article, too but Troops are not useless in 5th edition. Go look at nearly ever BA Jumper list where I pretty much always discuss ASM numbers depending upon point level to create the right balance for scoring and firepower. Troops are important in 5th edition (and more so in the NOVA/Centurion based missions) but there’s a balance between dropping heaps of points into Troops so you can capture objectives (I.e. 60 marines, 180 Boyz, etc.) and actually being able to kill your enemy (I.e. 30 Marines at 1750-2000 points).

As an aside Klose, how does the guy at your club do with Tau?

And to Winterwind and DCGFTW from Giant in the Playground; I don’t shove my views down anyone’s throat. As I’ve said above, 3++ is a primarily competitive blog (read the About section) but does not say “this way or the highway.” Yes, we believe as a general whole that armies like Orks aren’t great for a multitude of reasons. Nathan seems to exist here happily even though he thinks the opposite. You also fail at psychological assessment, especially since you seem to be assessing multiple people as one (it really would be funny if I had MP disorder…). Either that or you're confusing me with Stelek (which would really upset him). I’m not always right. My opinion isn’t always correct. However, I do understand 40k (and learning Fantasy) but please come here and explain why you think other authors or myself are wrong and let’s create a discussion where everyone can learn from it.