G_M_Raziel
32p36 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - Psycoteaz - Looking Back · 1 reply · +1 points
My first thought was, if you want the Purifiers to be scoring, why not take Castellan Crowe? At the point before you started throwing around upgrades to eat up points, you had 143pts to work with. You could have Crowe by squeezing just 7 more points out of the list. This does create an issue, though - 8 Troops choices. You could drop a couple of the melta-Warrior Squads and their transports and get back 310pts if I do my math right. With some squeezings elsewhere (dropping Purifier-toting Razorbacks down to Rhinos like Anon suggested), you could then fit in a couple of Venerable PsyRiflemen. You lose 10 infantry, but it's crappy T3 5+ infantry, and gain a couple better-armored hull and some more long-range S8 shooting.
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - \"Why Can\'t You Just ... · 0 replies · +2 points
And, of course, the degree of the problem between competitve and non-competitive players get blown completely out of proportion by Internet kvetching. People posting anonymously tend not to filter the way people talking to your face would do.
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - \"Why Can\'t You Just ... · 1 reply · +1 points
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - \"Why Can\'t You Just ... · 0 replies · +2 points
I think AbusePuppy's point in writing this article is that competitive players get demonized in a lot of the online forums. Somehow, fluff and hobby players manage to pull off taking some kind of weird moral high ground and use it to pillory competitve players.
I think part of this is ego-salvaging. It's a lot easier to devalue another player's win by undermining its legitimacy in some way than it is to simply cop to your own mistakes. If you admit you screwed up, and/or you have a bad list, then the obligation is on you to change how you play or write your lists. If you shift the blame to your opponent, however, you free yourself to continue writing lists and playing the same old way.
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - \"Why Can\'t You Just ... · 0 replies · +2 points
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - \"Why Can\'t You Just ... · 0 replies · 0 points
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - Email in: A codex mari... · 0 replies · +1 points
One downside is that you'll need to get sniper rifles for the Scouts somehow, but trading might be possible. Either that, or you might take them with pistol+ccw and use them as an outflanking unit to harass your opponent's backfield. Ditch the camo cloaks (which you won't need so much using them like this), and you'll have a few more points for some of the things Kirby suggested.
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - Email in: A codex mari... · 0 replies · +2 points
Also, if you add heavies to the Sternies like Kirby says, you've already got the AoBR ML-toting Marine to toss in there.
One other thought: instead of fielding 2 separate Tornados and 1 Squadron of 2 Typhoons, do it the other way around. I suppose there's an argument for it either way, but I think it'd be better to potentially pop 2 transports on your first turn than to be able to affect only 1 target at a time with them.
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - Threat ranges - What a... · 0 replies · +1 points
13 years ago @ 3++ is the new black - Warhammer 40,000 - Pla... · 2 replies · +1 points
Finally, just to point out something in particular - the double THSS+LR Rock list Kirby said you can't do well at 1500? (cough)Deathwing(cough) ;)