I've spent the majority of my young life fighting comformity. Its one of the few things I truely despise. Something about every one being the same... It irritates me to no end. I've always been a bit of a rebel with a cause, a James Dean if you will, and my play style and army lists I try to craft to reflect this.
This is more or less a rant about the internet and what the people at BoLS and YTTH claim. There are varying factions between the two, but the point is that the all conform to a certain ideal of what is a competitive list. Everything is either Good or FAIL, with the former being a minortiy in unit options. No matter what codex you use, no matter how versatille it is, there are only a few "builds" these people consider good. They've got list building down like its some science.
Now here's where they loose me... What reason do they have to claim X unit is awesome but W, Y, and Z all suck. Why is it this unit such a fail choice? Does everything really have to be stream lined to kill and last the entire game? What about expendable units? Effective point sinks? I understand some Math Hammer and that some units really do suck while others shine, but I believe there are many shades of grey between the two! This is a very dynamic game we play that is also heavily influenced by "randomness" (statistics) and luck. I'm positive there are more workable builds and useful units than what the high horses at BoLS and YTTH claim.
Essentially, what I'm saying is we should all strive for our own unique builds. We shouldn't confrom that only X units can win a game because So-n-So claim it to be. Let us unlearn what the internet has tried to shove down our throats and build our armies as we, the individuals, see best.
Starfinder: Mystic Preview - [image: Starfinder: Mystic Preview] Paizo’s got a sneak preview of the Mystic, one of the two upcoming “magic” classes in Starfinder. BY now we’ve been t...
28 minutes ago