Is it better to be a good general, or a lucky general?
Moderator: The Dread Knights
- Dreadlord taylindril
- Dark Rider
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:23 pm
- Contact:
- Faerthurir
- Corsair
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:24 pm
- Location: Ireland
aww, come on. seriously?
relying on luck is a severe weakness, even if you're the most severely unlucky person on the planet you can still make a damn good account of yourself if you know what you're doing. especially nowadays that the game is more objective based.
relying on luck is a severe weakness, even if you're the most severely unlucky person on the planet you can still make a damn good account of yourself if you know what you're doing. especially nowadays that the game is more objective based.
"There was a baby's nappy in that stagnant water, and some of it got in my mouth. And that STILL wasn't the mankiest thing that's happened to me all weekend."
- Nagathi
- The Exiled One
- Posts: 8067
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
I didn't say that you should rely on it. Mainly because you can't rely on something like luck. But as the question is asked, I feel luck is more important and will get you further.
And I doubt your second statement. If a guy rolls constant 1s for all his attacks and saves, and constant 6s for tests, he's screwed whatever he does.
~ Naggie
And I doubt your second statement. If a guy rolls constant 1s for all his attacks and saves, and constant 6s for tests, he's screwed whatever he does.
~ Naggie
- Arquinsiel
- Shadowdancer
- Posts: 4987
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
- Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
- Contact:
- Nagathi
- The Exiled One
- Posts: 8067
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
He can avoid combats (give or take, depending on what army and what composition), but he can't avoid taking casualties. And without causing any casualties to the enemy while taking some himself, it's pretty much impossible to win.
And if you intend to reply with "objectivities makes casualties less important", I can retort by saying that to be able to claim objectives, one reduces his/her abailities to avoid combat.
~ Naggie
And if you intend to reply with "objectivities makes casualties less important", I can retort by saying that to be able to claim objectives, one reduces his/her abailities to avoid combat.
~ Naggie
- Arquinsiel
- Shadowdancer
- Posts: 4987
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
- Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
- Contact:
I believe Faerthurir was thinking in 40k points there, but given that this game has static combat resolution, it is possible to lose huge numbers of troops and still win combat via sheer numbers and enthusiastic flag waving. And given that your example of "bad luck" is the absolute extreme of the possibility spectrum... it doesn't really account for luck minimising effects such as hatred. And yes, this does depend on what kind of an army you have picked, but picking the right army is the first step towards being a good general.
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
- Faerthurir
- Corsair
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:24 pm
- Location: Ireland
i resent that, and know many people who are able to engineer combats so that even if they fail to cause a single would, still win combat and auto-break their opponents. it's not that hard.
i'm not saying luck doesn't help, but i've won more than my fair share of battles where the dice have been against me.also, army composition falls under, in my opinion, being a good general.
i'm not saying luck doesn't help, but i've won more than my fair share of battles where the dice have been against me.also, army composition falls under, in my opinion, being a good general.
"There was a baby's nappy in that stagnant water, and some of it got in my mouth. And that STILL wasn't the mankiest thing that's happened to me all weekend."