Jump to content

Lord Hanaur

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lord Hanaur last won the day on December 26 2016

Lord Hanaur had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Lord Hanaur

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,570 profile views
  1. Liking them isnt the point. You already knew that. Anywho, glad to see how broad the horizon got. That's super open minded of you. Accolades for being so GOOD A PERSON that you would gladly inflict that on your enemies at the friendliest event I've ever been to. Cheers my friend. You are a true humanitarian.
  2. Yeah. You'll bring 5 Knights and I'd rather die than do it. So you're right about that particular unicorn. I can't argue that we "see that differently".
  3. That made no sense. I run a tournament (calling it elite is your words, not mine). As TO I...suppose...I control the ones I run? Like all TO's? Not sure theres any correlation but... what's funny about this comment is that it exactly describes the genesis of OFCC and its quest to end "beardy lists" so long ago. Ironic. But it's appropriate to point that out during a discussion like this one. You again dont understand. I have gone to a LOT of OFCC's. I said in this very post that I loved the mission of OFCC. Are you just not listening?
  4. My original post. I agree completely with the difficulties that were laid out in the original post by evil_bryan. Not one point of disagreement I acknowledge that its difficult, but I think that you can go to any tournament and get the same spread of "okay that wasn't so bad" and the "Good lord, does that man have no SOUL" type lists that you get at OFCC when there is no rating. I valued the hard work people did on ratings. We mostly shot for lower rated armies anyways and always had themes that were necessarily restrictive but, well, themed. We did Rolling thunder where all things had to be on servos or in a transport. We did hordes with no less than 120 models. We did all Tau with Stealthsuits and Everyone had to feature Stingwings. And so on. We knew it was hard work to grade these, but we were appreciative that they did. We didn't really consider going this year. or last year. It wasn't a protest or anything dramatic like that. It's just that the event sort of (by which I mean 100% exactly) turned into a painting contest the last year we went; and now list rating which was what made it special, is gone (and had in fact kind of been gone for all practical purposes before that because of the crazy stuff people wanted to allow). I for one definitely miss the spirit of the event. The people have almost always been fun. But that would have happened without OFCC. What OFCC brought was a different set of rules that made the games more fun intrinsically, instead of simply relying on a great guy to continue to be a great guy which he was probably going to be anyways. I tell people about OFCC all the time, but now I just tell them "don't go if you aren't a world class painter. The cost is pretty high and it's pretty much the lists you always see at any lower priced event." Saying that makes me super sad.
  5. Again you misread me. Assumedly on purpose
  6. I dont think you ARE okay with me having an opinion unless it's the same one. You don't sound like it at all. People go or dont go no matter what I say. That's the reality. If you want them to love this event, it will be loved on its merits. You can have a cloistered yes-man society or you can have a real one. If it's tough to fill the event, it will be because of the event. If it's easy to fill, it will be because...of the event. My opinion is very positive towards composition at OFCC. It has been a defining characteristic. I am sorry that it is such a chore for the people who did it. All I can say is: thank you all for doing it thanklessly, and please advocate to keep the sanity in list design. You can diminish me or attack me for wanting the best possible event. But that is the source of my commentary. You dont agree, but my commentary is to encourage not just a reunion atmosphere but a reunion atmosphere that makes the newest player feel like hes not just going to "another ITC level thing".
  7. ...Says the guy attacking me for LIKING OFCC 's tradition? Why are you?
  8. You're intentionally misrepresenting my point about painting, or you're just not understanding. Can't tell and now I don't care. I support the OFCC mission. We're talking implementation. We disagree on it. Evil_Bryan fixed what I'm talking about (as regards paint) BECAUSE it was wrong. So clearly he agreed about the implementation. Clearly. So unless you think him wrong for fixing it, then you find me equally right about disliking what happened before he did. He also deleted composition which was absolutely core to OFCC forever. That I valued it is not remotely strange. What IS strange is the 180 on it. So he went out of his way to post a discussion starter about it; and here we are. Talking about it.
  9. Congratulations on your quest to "free"OFCC generals to be completely uninhibited in their list as long as they can shame their captain into allowing it. Congrats man. Your unicorn is just dead sexy. Lol
  10. Tone your list down? I know, right?
  11. We played the game just fine with 1's and 2's, remember? 🙂 I'm just such a big fan of what OFCC says it's about. I really am glad the scoring got fixed. I just hope they will reconsider the list issue. or not.
  12. You're side stepping the issue. Great guys playing lists that arent fun still means we all have to play an unfun list. Avoiding THIS was at the core of OFCC. THIS is why list ratings are good.
  13. The event itself cares about scoring. Evidenced by the fact that scoring exists. Since the event continues to score... the scoring should make sense. It didn't make sense on any level two years ago and that prompts me to qualify my statements. What I continue to try and convey is that it isnt WINNING, as someone else that ISN'T me suggested was the issue. It's the intrinsically more fun experience you get WHEN ratings happen. Which is the subject of the thread, despite attempts to repeatedly inject the word winning into this equation. I was 5-0 at the last one. Winning wasnt my issue. It wasnt the people...as I must again point out. It was the actual fun of facing four of those five lists, which in no way exhibited to me anything other than that their goal WAS to win!!! Does this clarify things? If not, I've done what I can. I respected and liked the work done to avoid this very issue. It was WORTH paying for to get the fun lists aspect of it. WORTH IT. That was an attraction. Climbing uphill against 4 power lists on the other hand... I can do that anywhere. We tanked our lists repeatedly (our best job was 1,1,1,2) to live up to the standard I am bemoaning the loss of. Wins be damned.