Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And you apparently don't have a very Orky Philosophy. Yes, an Ork does in fact buy a gun without finding out if it shoots. It'll shoot anyways, of course, but he doesn't care if it does or not before he buys it.

carmachu wrote:
Here's the problem:

Your unwilling to accept other people's demonstrations, suggestions and experiences, such as Wyatt's, who has won, without them playing you with warbikes. But we're suppose to accept YOUR experiences, without question. But we dont have to play you to accept them. Now granted you'll play anyone in vassal, but still.

Doesnt quite jive. Its strange that you dont accept others experience and you question it, but we're to accept yours.

It makes perfect sense. I have an immense ego, and am supremely confident in my abilities. If I could put $50 on every game, against every opponent, I would. I'd be rich. I put myself out there/here/everywhere as the best because I *want* people to call me out and challenge me. I *love* to lose, because I gain knowledge; I just don't think many people are up to the challenge.

I accept other peoples' experiences as long as they don't run opposite of my own experiences. When they do, I must presume that either I am wrong, or they are wrong. In the case of Orks....warbikers in particular, I've tested them a bit - played against them far more often. I've never been impressed with their performance, and can't see anyone doing anything to change my lack of being impressed with them. Why would I accept someone elses' experiences when they run counter to my own?

If my laurels aren't enough for someone else to trust my experience because of their own experience, then the only way we can really reconcile the opposing ideas is to pit them against each other to determine a victor.

Dashofpepper wrote:

It makes perfect sense. I have an immense ego, and am supremely confident in my abilities. If I could put $50 on every game, against every opponent, I would. I'd be rich. I put myself out there/here/everywhere as the best because I *want* people to call me out and challenge me. I *love* to lose, because I gain knowledge; I just don't think many people are up to the challenge.

No. It only makes sense to YOU. To everyone else, listening to you toot your own horn about yuor success, then turn around and put down another success with something you disagree with.

I accept other peoples' experiences as long as they don't run opposite of my own experiences. When they do, I must presume that either I am wrong, or they are wrong. In the case of Orks....warbikers in particular, I've tested them a bit - played against them far more often. I've never been impressed with their performance, and can't see anyone doing anything to change my lack of being impressed with them. Why would I accept someone elses' experiences when they run counter to my own?

By the extension of that logic, why should I accept that YOUR testing works and someone elses does not? It makes no sense what so ever for someone like myself sitting on the side lines, reading your posts, Mann's posts and anyone elses.

Sure you tested yours. But then again so has someone else. I dont see why I should have any reason to accept your testing and logic and reasoning, but at the same time I should accept someone else's logic and testing and reasoning.....on the presumption that you disagree.

Its what we call hypocrite.

If my laurels aren't enough for someone else to trust my experience because of their own experience, then the only way we can really reconcile the opposing ideas is to pit them against each other to determine a victor.

Not really. If one game between you and stelek really didnt solve anything, I dont see one game with you vs someone with bikes on vassal reconciling an opposing idea. Too many variables in one game to really conclude. What happens if your dice run cold and the bike army wins? Does that make the idea bikes in orks work? What happens if your opponents run cold? Does that mean your thoughts on warbieks are correct?

carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

One note though. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/346793.page I'm not worried about my dice going bad because they are *always* bad. I still win.

Redbeard wrote:I'm going to take a wazdakka army to Adepticon in a month or so, and I guess we'll see what happens.

Do remember to tell everyone how you do. BatReps would be even better.
And if Mannahnin is there, I ll love to see how well he does as well, since he speaks like a pro

Mann is old school pro. He's been around since forever. Taught me everything I needed to know about getting my ass kicked. I take his opinion pretty seriously because I know that it is backed by experience.

pretre wrote:Mann is old school pro.

Wow, it will be epic to see an OLD school pro perform on the table.
He may even show us things that we might not have seen before, don't you think so?

I do okay. I know several people better than me, and I know of plenty more who may be, whom I've never gotten to play against.

Dash inspired me to do this:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

I feel a little silly, but decided to go ahead and count the stuff on my trophy shelf, and reconstruct some other stuff from tournament reports I wrote. It's missing a bunch of league wins since 2004, as neither Empire Games nor Game Castle give out trophies for those, and I stopped keeping records some years back.

Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

What was uncivil about his post, exactly?

He made succinct points but he didn't insult you. I'd be pretty interested to hear you refute the ideas that he put forward regarding your apparently completely contradictory statements. That is, I would be if I didn't know that this thread is a complete case of






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

That is pretty impressive, man.

How many of those did you use summoned lesser daemons in? I wouldn't feel silly at all. You putting that up there is a testament to your playing ability, not an appeal that your authority on gaming issues should be without question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

I certainly have.

After a few games with Mannahnin I completely rethought the way I build lists.

pretre wrote:Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

I certainly will hope to, but that is if he features some of his games at adepticon.

Actually, if he issues me a challenge via Vassal like DOP did, I guess I ll take it up. I ll find a way to make my Vassal work.

And to be frank, I don't think very much of the majority of the tournaments he has listed. Don't get me wrong, I m not trying to dismiss his achievement. But only certain tournaments (like the NovaCon) are truely competitive. That being said, I still commend him for his enthusiasm in the hobby Like myself, I only pick and choose games/events that are truely competitive. I guess I should start looking at the hobby from a different perspective.

Pretre, you know you are still my 40k brother. Thanks, sir.

That's really flattering, MR. Thanks. I barely beat you in those games. Either could just has easily have been a draw, though the positions I managed to maneuver would have made it tough for you to win.

May 1999-Oct 2002 I fielded Eldar.
Oct 2002-Dec 2003 I mostly played Emperor's Children.
Dec 2003-Winter 2007 I mostly played Dark Angels, with some Codex: Marines mixed in.
Spring 2008-Present I've primarily fielded my Fallen Angels, though I broke out the Eldar again twice for leagues, and I fielded Space Wolves for two events last year. I also finally built my Dark Eldar Harlequin-counts-as army that I've been talking about for years, and am fielding it in the league which is wrapping up now. Finals are March 5th.

I've fielded Lesser Daemons in, IIRC, every league and tournament game for which I've used the current chaos dex, and 95% of the friendly games.

Striderx, I've written up some battle reports and a bunch of tournament after action reports for the bigger events. They're usually in the Battle Reports section, though some of them are in Army Lists, when I had a thread discussing a prospective list then reported on its performance after the fact. I don't play on Vassal. Once you start playing tournaments (as I don't expect, at this point, that you'll take my word for it) you'll learn out that what makes them competitive is the quality of the players. MVBrandt agrees with me on that. He feels that his tournament is more evaluative than most, but that's a different thing.

Mannahnin, you going to the Nova Open? If so, how about a game before the Whiskey Challenge on Friday night? Bring your warbikers and teach me a thing or two, you might be a worthy opponent.

I see that you've been in a lot of leagues...those are always on weekday nights (usually Monday or Wednesday) everywhere I've lived, and I don't have the time for that.

Call me super-competitive, but I like to play someone myself to get a feel for them...in the back of your mind, do you ever wonder if someone still would have won a tournament if you had been there. Why does everyone think it so strange that I'd rather play against someone's hypothesis than try theoryhammering it?

Winning a tournament with Necrons isn't the same as winning a tournament with necrons against known and respected players. A batrep of warbikers beating up on Hulksmash or Reece, or Alex or Paul (or me), etc...while they're using a competitive list well would do wonders to change my mind.

*EDIT* On a probably related note, I'm a visual / hands-on learner. I can't read about it, I have to do it myself. =p

Dash, as you can easily read in this thread, I don't play Orks (well, aside from a couple of fun games; I've tried out a lot of armies). I'd be happy to play you in a game; a challenge or not. I'm no internet celebrity, though. I should be going to the NOVA this year; but it's not locked in yet.

I have played leagues almost continuously since I started playing, and tournaments whenever I could. I spent a couple of years in there working weekends, and a couple of years with the local store where my friends played not being super enthused about GW, and I was the guy running the tournaments rather than winning them. There were also a couple of periods where I wasn't winning tournaments because one of two or three other friends of mine were winning them all; some of my club mates are absolutely brutal players. Alex Fennell, Christian Flores (winner of the Adepticon Championship in 2009, and played on the top table in their Gladiator in 2007; he doesn't get out to a lot of events, though), Jamie Hatcher, Matt Cassidy. All of these guys are outstanding. I believe I'm running over 50% against Jamie at this point, and Alex and I are pretty even. I think both Christian and Matt have the edge on me in league or tournament play, respectively.

Yes, I've certainly wondered if someone would have won certain events if they had played me. Like the one I came 3rd in a few days ago. I tabled two opponents, but only got a moderate win against Troy Esposito (Grimwulfe on here, one of Da Boyz, a club with a couple of GT winners) and his space wolves. A daemon player and a Dark Eldar player managed to get more battle points than me; I would have been happy to face either of them, though.

Mannahnin wrote:That's really flattering, MR. Thanks. I barely beat you in those games. Either could just has easily have been a draw, though the positions I managed to maneuver would have made it tough for you to win.

Don't I know it; that's one of the main things that I took away from those games.

The other thing I realized was the necessity of fast scoring units coming in from reserve late in the game. Maybe even something that could, oh I don't know, smash a unit of havocs that was sitting on an objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Yes, I've certainly wondered if someone would have won certain events if they had played me.

I think everyone who fancies themselves a good player wonders that from time to time. I know I have.

Yeah, one of the things I really had to learn about 5th is how critical it is to have units which can reach the enemy backfield quickly in Spearhead, and in Cap & Control.

I had a disappointing showing at The Conflict because I spent too many points on cult marines so I had Fearless in case of PBS, but didn't have enough backfield attack. I had a similar problem at the NEWCC; I got low-score wins or draws. The lists I ran at Templecon and this last weekend, OTOH, had both outflanking Chosen and DSing terminators, so I could reasonably threaten the enemy backfield, even in Spearhead and when Reserving against a shooty army which had first turn. At TC I won against a strong Daemon army despite terrible dice, wrecked a pretty solid Nids army, and left a BA player with half a Rhino. At the tournament last weekend I had a good solid win against Troy's SW, tabled Tau and Deathwing. Much better.

I remember when 5th came out and people frequently referred to Cap & Control as "drawhammer" or "draw bore", because they hadn't adapted their lists. You still see that occasionally, but more people have wised up.

Mannahnin wrote:I remember when 5th came out and people frequently referred to Cap & Control as "drawhammer" or "draw bore", because they hadn't adapted their lists. You still see that occasionally, but more people have wised up.

Yeah, Capture and Control was an auto-draw and Kill Points was impossible to get a draw on according to conventional wisdom.

At any rate, I hope we can sneak in a friendly game at some point in Chicago.

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before, done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

Very impressive. Thanks.

carmachu wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before,done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.

The conversation is borderline civil, tending towards flippant and standoff-ish with the number of colloquialisms and aphorisms being thrown around.

The highlighted reds indicate a need for rephrasing to make the statement more palpable. Either rephrasing them or excising them from the conversation would be needed.

Instead of saying "nice deflection of the discussion," try instead "You are avoiding the discussion" and citing a reason why.

"Par for the course for you," can translate to a more neutral choice of words such as "harming the discussion."

Finally, adding in the "I've seen it before, done better by folks" line can be removed in it entiretly. You made the point of fighting on vassal as childish, and thus don't need to insult the person further.

But both of you need to take a step back and address the choice of words before it gets out of hand.

Mannahnin wrote:Pretre, you know you are still my 40k brother. Thanks, sir.

I miss the frequent games I used to get in. Different times, I suppose.

Mann's History

And this is why I trust his judgement. 11 years of experience at numerous tournaments, leagues and constant play in hundreds of games along with a consistent, analytical approach to information. Oppose that to OTT internet celebrities with a couple of years play and some wins at GTs and clubbing seals under their belt. Sigh.

M, we should get you a blog and some OTT talking points, you could be an internet celebrity in no time. Say Hi to Christian for me. I remember that guy as being brutal and maybe pulled one win against him, with my cheesy Redemptionist spam, all the times we played. Dakka league was definitely a good time.

WarOne, I'm carefully not saying anything objectionable; I'm not looking for a suspension.

carmachu, I continue not responding to you because you only contribute flamebait. If you do find civility, I'm always happy to chat with you.

Mannahnin, interestingly enough, while I've seen a lot of groans about Capture and Control since I started playing (shortly after 5th edition came out), I don't think I've every actually had a draw on one. I tend to leave my objective unmanned, and throw everything at the enemy, and towards the end of the game, send something to nab an objective as an afterthought. I tend to play every game as if it were annihilation. If every game *was* annihilation, I'm pretty sure nothing would change in my playstyle. In fact, I wish every game was pitched battle and annihilation so that my opponent and I always started closer to each other. DoW is like a delayed normal game minus one turn of krumpin', because it takes me a turn just to get to the deployment line where pitched battle would have put me in the first place.

Umm. That sounds good and all, but don't you take 10 gretchin in your Ork list just for rear objectives?

Kind of at odds with 'Every game is annihilation'.

After my gretchin killed a unit of horrors, they turned around and tied up a soulgrinder for several turns. Everyone knows that even Ghazghkull Thraka fears my gretchin.

Thanks for answering my question seriously. :(

WarOne wrote:

carmachu wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before,done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.

The conversation is borderline civil, tending towards flippant and standoff-ish with the number of colloquialisms and aphorisms being thrown around.

The highlighted reds indicate a need for rephrasing to make the statement more palpable. Either rephrasing them or excising them from the conversation would be needed.

Instead of saying "nice deflection of the discussion," try instead "You are avoiding the discussion" and citing a reason why.

"Par for the course for you," can translate to a more neutral choice of words such as "harming the discussion."

Finally, adding in the "I've seen it before, done better by folks" line can be removed in it entiretly. You made the point of fighting on vassal as childish, and thus don't need to insult the person further.

But both of you need to take a step back and address the choice of words before it gets out of hand.

Again, you are doing what Dash has done. Its an old debating trick- dont wish to talk about the actual facts, you deflect it to either a)civility or b) spelling or grammer or c) tone.

Its not borderline uncivil.

Further, it is par for the course- and that again isnt uncivil- before Dash it was Stelek. Before Stelek came along and left, it was Ed Maule. Before ed ran with it it was an old fellow named Ronin. Its the same thing, different people and follows the same pattern.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about civility and bolding in red you could, you know, convince Dash to actually answer the questions instead of throwing challeneges and playing tough guy and then turning around an talking about civility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

carmachu, I continue not responding to you because you only contribute flamebait. If you do find civility, I'm always happy to chat with you.

Right of course. Its easier to ignore the facts laid out then answer them. Got the translation. There was nothing uncivil about the first post-

YOU choose to expect us to accept your experiences without question, while at the same time question someone elses, unless they play you on vassal. Its a typical double standard.

carmachu, I urge you to go back and read this thread - your questions have all been asked and answered by other people, though you may not choose to read them.

When someone copies someone elses' content to hammer in a point, even if its been addressed, and does so in a very hostile manner, there's no point engaging - in this case you. I don't believe anything I'd type would do anything present you an opportunity to pull something out of context (or not) and continue being hostile, looking to flame my aggression.

That *is* the last time that I'll address you until you decide to post something civil, topical, unique, and not personal.

This thread is closed while I review as it has been reported. I am keeping closed as there's too much flaming. Its amazing to me people think there are "right ways" to play-which seem to consist only of their method of play. Each person has a different play style and what works for them may not work for others. There's nothing wrong with multiple tacticas to represent differnt viewpoints. To think otherwise is short sighted and smacks of false pride.

But to the original topic I think Voodoo summed it up easily early on:

Since I'm the one who wrote the vast majority of that Takktica, I'll chime in.

The Takktica was written right when the Ork dex came out, which means it was written with a 4th Edition mindset and the 4th Edition meta, specifically area terrain being the most common terrain that was completely LOS blocking.

In that context stuff like Storm Boyz were pretty damn good, since you could hide them very easily and advance hopping between different pieces of terrain and hit a target unmolested.

This is also why things like Battlewagons and Deffrollas aren't trumpeted in the Takktica, armor other than skimmers weren't used much at all in 4th, and traditional armor wasn't very survivalble at all.

So since I barely read about current 40k, let alone play it anymore, the Takktica should be freely modified/edited by others who do currently play 40k and Orks.