JWolf: Rousing the Sleeping Beast

My recent-real-rant, grossly misunderstood I'm sure, did more than raise the odd eyebrow, it woke up JWolf.  That was an unintentional byproduct of said rant, proof positive the pen is mightier than the sword...



...or proof that crazy attracts attention, which explains a metric ton of shit that happens on forums and blogs.

So I've been working on my not-so-super-secret BoLSCon army for the team tournament, and that makes for a boring (or more boring than normal, depends on who you ask) Strictly Average as I'm waiting until the week of the event to showcase my work.

Stop!  I'm not saying its the end all and be all of modeling and painting - it ain't: there's a reason this site is called Strictly Average and it isn't just a homage to a white man's shame - but it is the best I can do and I'm proud of it.

I was also proud of the Storm Buster, the Dyson Pattern Storm Raven, and we all know what an epic failure that was.  So am I making good or topping it?  You'll have to see.  Still, Lauby from Lauby Industries has been helping me via email with very pointed and appropriate suggestions and the Master Manipulator (every store needs one) helped me with a backhanded compliment, shaming me into stretching my painting wings with a clean layering style, far different from my normal speed-painting.

So how does JWolf come into all this?  I'm stealing a comment he made re: Hard Boyz 2009 and re-posting it, that's why.  I thought it appropriate then and equally so now, during this competitive tournament season.  I am editing it some, since my intention is not to start a flamewar over dead ground but to illustrate a thought.  Here is is.

JWolf said:

There are a lot of random factors that go into winning tournaments and being at the top tables at the end, and these are more important as the number of rounds is reduced. With the scenarios given (at Hard Boyz Chicago, 2009 - Brent), I would have expected more Mech Eldar at the top tables and fewer Orks, but it seems like people got more aggressive for the finals than I would have thought. Aggressive deployments helped Nick to win, but would have been very problematic if his opponents had seized the initiative (probably not nearly as much in scenario 1; Dawn of War is really great for a Guard Alpha army). This takes nothing from Nick (Darkwynn, the winner - Brent), because after all other factors are figured, he won, and no amount of kvetching changes that.

(I think that's a very valid point and figures prominently in every discussion on every blog and forum: there is way too much armchair criticism.  Wait now!  That's much, much different from kibitzing.  It's appropriate to reexamine games and events and try to learn from them.  Equally appropriate is discussing the event, the missions, the armies, the players - it's all fair game.  What isn't cool is how much of it inadvertently or intentionally undermines the winner, as if the success was a fluke.  There is luck that goes in to winning a big event, but the canny gamer makes his own luck.... there's a blog article in that... - Brent)
 
As to comments from the peanut gallery, what is there really to say? A guy who has never won a championship denigrates people who do win and claims moral superiority for not even trying - why would anyone take such a person seriously? I got the same garbage after winning Gladiator, and I even won with my list more so than my play. I would have thought that the "list is the most important thing" crowd would have viewed that as some sort of personal triumph, but instead, I got poop flung at me by every monkey (edit - Brent).
 
Of course, anyone who thinks there is such a thing as (edit - Brent) has already demonstrated a lack of (edit - Brent). What is (edit - Brent) changes over time, as the evolution of lists in a competitive environment naturally marginalizes the list that was (edit - Brent) last tournament (or week, or yesterday). Building lists to beat the expected competition means making some choices that seem suboptimal in order to have all the right tools in the box.  (Edit - Brent) conceptually tries to force every task into driving nails, which is great if you only have nails to drive, but 15 hammers sort of sucks for sawing boards and pouring a foundation.

Good stuff.  Yes, I got happy with the editing but as I stated I'm not trying to make this a flame but simply giving wider circulation to a thought I really liked.  I think it bears thinking on.


Okay, maybe I let the power go to my head... or maybe I just thought it was funny to edit out all meaning from the last paragraph... you decide!