Thoughts on AbusePuppy's FAQ on 3++?

[Kremmet]

It's one of those "this is title in a game about man dollies made up years ago to differentiate it from the other categories" things.

[WestRider]

I keep wondering why we say that the player that wins the most is the best general. Seems like the best general would be the one best at leading the army he has, not necessarily always winning. Some battles are just doomed. A good general should be able to fight a good fight with a bad list, even if they don't win.

 

Though the term general is also very misleading when the soldiers are just models, not living people. A general that wins though attrition could become best general at our tournaments, despite real life probably not being able to retain moral of his subordinates.

 

Or is this one of those victors write history sort of thing....?

Well, the theoretical point of having Army Lists and a Points match system and symmetrical Scenarios is that you don't end up with doomed battles. If the system is broken badly enough that that's happening, corrections should be made to preserve the balance of the game. Hence FAQs and changes like this.

 

Those sorts of asymmetrical battles are represented in many of the Altar/Echoes of War missions in the various supplements, where the Victory Conditions can be as simple as "have at least one Model left alive", to represent the fact that in such an uneven contest, mere survival is a victory. But in balanced scenarios like the basic Eternal War Missions, victory requires, well, victory.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I don't know what you plan to measure.g. Or are you saying you would like to rename?

[Guest]

I don't know what you plan to measure.g. Or are you saying you would like to rename?

Second one, I'd rename. Something like, "Master of Victory," would fit just fine. It doesn't belittle it, but clarifies the title.