Woot!

I am super stoked that I got a mention on 3++ today.  AbusePuppy mentioned one of my previous articles about qualities that make an army "good", though I resent the implied gender confusion in the introduction. ; ) 

The article is very good, but it only comes at what makes a "good" army from a competitive perspective.  I like to think of AbusePuppy as me without emotions or morale bearing but with untapped analytical ability, just kidding here man!  His perspective in the article looks at what makes a good, competitive army, which is completely valid, but it isn't the only perspective. 

My previous article's point was to determine a wide array of motivations for choosing an army and calling it good.  I guess this doesn't even have to be done on a codex-to-codex level. It can also be done on an army list level.  I think my Sanguinary Guard army is a great example of this.  I think it is a super cool army.  It comes from a "good, competitive" codex.  I think it is good because it has theme (SG and Dante), it has some power (I am winning quite a few games), and the models look blasted awesome!  This makes it a good list to me.  However, from a purely competitive standpoint, it sucks. It simply can't handle some armies.  It is sub-optimally created.  It has glaring weaknesses.  But that is fine by me.  I have a more competitive Space Wolf army. 

Let's face it.  Though large events like NOVA and Adepticon get lots of press on the blogs, the majority of 40k players aren't going to these events.  As a matter of fact, it would seem that the majority of gamers are actually falling into the "beer and pretzels" gaming category that GW supposedly champions. So the competitive perspective can't be the only determining factor for what makes an army "good". 

So, please look at my poll.  Give your opinion.  Let me know what makes an army good in your opinion. 

AbusePuppy, now that you have linked me and written an article, I am calling you out.  You better vote on my poll!