Monday Randomness

Catching up on my weekly reading at Bell of Lost Souls, I came across one of thier many 'intersting' reads.
Whilst I usually comment on thier site. I have chosen to write on my own regarding my view of the article and its comments.  The original article canbe found here "Grey Knights make me a worse player", please take some time to read the article if you haven't.  I persoanlly found it amusing and (to me) typical of BoLs misdirect.
To parapharse the article:
  • GK are too easy to win with.
  • I learned them on one game.
  • they are not a challaenge.
  • GW needs to balance its codex
  • ranodm whine about how broken they are
  • random gripe.
  • insert commentors.
The best response to this artcile is sadly posted on another page.
Brent Davey   I find it funny that theirs this whole rage about the competitive nature of 40k people need to learn that the internet lists don't always win. at 2000 points if you believe the internet a dark elder witch army would destroy any tau army but i have found that to no be the case in my personal experience.
In my experience it my suposidly top tier space wolfs army actual dose bad against grey knights, where as my low tier armys being Tau and Orks actually mess up grey knight quite well. admirably the grey knights i fight aren't the silly over the top but nether are my Tau or Ork armys.
and on the subject of codex creep find it funny cause if you all look at who writes any given codex it wards stuff that seams to brake all the rules (still think he was ether stoned, drunk or both when he wrote grey knights).
Why do i feel this comment is a relevant reply? Because it sums up an amusing point.  GKs can and do get beaten by the more lower powered armies. But shouldn't they be an 'auto-win'' button? 
 The article makes a few valid points (I think) but fails to note one thing, player ability. There was a series of articles the weeks before regarding "Playing laterally and how to win when the internets say you suck".
I think this is a HUGE factor in the creation of this articel. BigRed forgot to factor in the fact that is is a highly skilled longtime player.  I persoanlly have found that more skilled players can do wonders with any army that they play.  Will an "easier" to play army give them less of a challenge? Yes, but the same can be said for any army. 

I have seen  new players, cream  veteran players in thier first games.  I have also seen veteran players finish 2k battles in under 1 hour.  Player ability has allot to do with how an army plays and how easy it seems. 
Also Warhammer 40 and WFB has a main flavor that has been GWs philosophy for a long time.  "All armies are not created equal" this menas that some are easier to play then others, some test a players ability and furstration levels. Some match-ups will ebe tough as they are SUPPOSE to be.  This is one of the aspects I enjoy about playing 40k, they amount of discussion arguements I have had with new and pld plauyers around 'this is OP'd etc..' are amusing.  Most of these discussion can be resolved by considering all units of the codex in comparison to another codex and the armies overall theme  (strengths/weaknesses)

I think thiis ramble, went in a weird direction....

So you think a player's skill/ability has a major factor on thier fun/and if they win?

No comments:

Post a Comment