Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Context was required, thank you.

Yeah. While I appreciate the input of Wyldhunt, my friend didn't bring the reapers/seer council combination because he thought they would be the lesser options. He wanted to, and I [almost] quote turn the middle of the map into a "feth you" no mans land for marines.

Also, how is funsies =/= fun?

Different connotations/undertones. "Fun" is a term which is subjective/relative to the person having that fun [I won't enter here into whether there are things that are objectively fun for an Aristotelian virtuous person].

"For funsies" is roughly equivalent to "for the lulz."

In the context, it meant: "Humor me. "

So tell me, why did you feel the right to dicate how his army is played?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, it's explaining how even if you give people advice about how the game actually works, people still think they can break it. It's the "scrub"'s call if they want to change and maybe win, without handicapping their opponent.

Either:

1. The article exemplifies the anti-scrub, elitist, "gid gud" attitude

or

2. It's simply irrelevant to the current situation. I'm not complaining about my list not being able to place at tournaments. I don't play tournaments. In fact, the very fact that the article was even offered in this context is symptomatic of the anti-scrub, elitist, "gid gud" attitude. Not every 40k game takes place in a tournament or as preparation for a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So tell me, why did you feel the right to dicate how his army is played?

I don't. I do, however, have the right to decline to play him (or anyone else) in the first place.

Thus, for the umpteenth time, I repeat: refer to the OP.

Have you ever thought that you exemplify the anti-good, elitist, "git bad" attitude?

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Context was required, thank you.

Yeah. While I appreciate the input of Wyldhunt, my friend didn't bring the reapers/seer council combination because he thought they would be the lesser options. He wanted to, and I [almost] quote turn the middle of the map into a "feth you" no mans land for marines.

Well, I am sure with the list your run, it wouldn't too hard to set up an area of denial with any or play style.

I think we've gone as far as we're going to go here, and Rule #1, already in jeopardy, will soon be...completely ignored - to the detriment of...some.

As was noted a while back, this seems better suited to a personal blog or Facebook post.

As such - thread closed.