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.

Bharring wrote:
I'm guessing you don't play... let's pick Necrons. If you do, just pretend I said $faction.

If a Necron player were to suggest that Monoliths were in a bad place, and suggested they halved their points, doubled their T and W, and added a couple A:10 S10 Ap-5 W:d6 guns to it, are you unqualified to comment?

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I am personally unqualified to discuss Necrons. I don't see them in tournaments and I don't play them. I have had games with them casually, but I don't see monoliths in those games. I saw them through 7th and the start of 8th, then they fell away. It's been enough time and the codex has changed so much that i'd just read and not post.

I certainly will not google the unit and try to make an opinion on something i don't play or experience. It's disingenuous, and i'm fine bowing out of a discussion if that's the direction it goes in. As opposed to some people here, who would look up the statline and say something like "but it does d3 damage" or something asinine.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Monoliths need a 2+ save and quantum shielding. For 250 points.
I am totally serious and not taking the piss.
I'm a necron player, so you know I'm right.

That's too expensive.

They need a 2++ save, quantum shielding, and a rule that maximizes the sum of all damage in a turn to 1. Along with an exception to deep strike rules.

I've never been a French national. I'd certainly add my two cents to a conversation about if French nationals need to obey the speedlimit on the road I live on.

Bharring wrote:
I've never been a French national. I'd certainly add my two cents to a conversation about if French nationals need to obey the speedlimit on the road I live on.

I think that analogy is a little off. That'd be like a Necron player discussing the core rulebook, which isn't quite what they're all sniping around.

Bharring wrote:
I've never been a French national. I'd certainly add my two cents to a conversation about if French nationals need to obey the speedlimit on the road I live on.

I've never been a scientist. But i'll certainly deny climate change, having done my own research on Google.

Just because you have opinion doesn't mean it's informed or has any basis in fact. Further, not all opinions are equal.

Necrons are top tier. Their troops have -1 AP guns and also they can come back to life. See how easy that is? I can dig in and defend this position all day.

Not all opinions are equal, definitely.

There are certainly some non $faction players with a better grasp of the army than $faction.

The first group's opinion has more value to me than the second, certainly. I don't like the very concept of it being shouted down.

The scientist who's investigated a subject persuades other experts by presenting his data and arguments, not by saying "the other guy isn't a scientist". The "other guy" should be the null hypothesis, not the opposite view.

the_scotsman wrote:


I mean, mortars got a really hefty nerf with the rule of three. Average competitive guard list had like 9 mortar HWTs and now it's down to three. those are like 30pt units, they don't make much of a difference if you can only get 9 bases of them on the table.

The other thing about custodes though is that they're LUDICROUSLY cheap to collect by 40k standards. Your allied three captain biker doods is one kit. One fairly expensive kit, but one kit, for like 900ish points of HQs that come ready for their own detachment, and take 15 seconds to paint.

Both great points for sure. I still think mortars are setting themselves up to get whacked when they're literally the only thing IS takes and the one Heavy that gets totally filled with them every single time.

I take 3 HWTs that are 9 mortars, which don't violate the Rule of 3. It's cheap, easy, and fething simple way to rain down s4 ap0 shots on careless players, making them locked down. Otherwise, it's all HBs, all the time. Lascannons and ACs are best on vehicles, not wasted in squads with BS4. I don't see the major problem with mortars. They aren't hard to take out and they rarely live past turn 3 in my games.

Can we just say, off of everything else, the GK's got the nerf bat from pissed off fanboys who hate the lore around them? Blizzard, I mean, EA, I mean Konami, I mean Games workshop crushed them, and curb stomped them, then gave all their belongings to a race that no one cared about, or wanted, and painted them gold. I am willing to bet dollars to babies that if you were to look into the future financials of GW, they don't update the GKs ever. I see them going the way of Elysians and Squats.

 Marmatag wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'm guessing you don't play... let's pick Necrons. If you do, just pretend I said $faction.

If a Necron player were to suggest that Monoliths were in a bad place, and suggested they halved their points, doubled their T and W, and added a couple A:10 S10 Ap-5 W:d6 guns to it, are you unqualified to comment?

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I am personally unqualified to discuss Necrons. I don't see them in tournaments and I don't play them. I have had games with them casually, but I don't see monoliths in those games. I saw them through 7th and the start of 8th, then they fell away. It's been enough time and the codex has changed so much that i'd just read and not post.

I certainly will not google the unit and try to make an opinion on something i don't play or experience. It's disingenuous, and i'm fine bowing out of a discussion if that's the direction it goes in. As opposed to some people here, who would look up the statline and say something like "but it does d3 damage" or something asinine.

I'm qualified to talk about 40K. Or do you think I can't understand what a dreadnought does now that it's a psychic dreadnought? Oh a slightly bigger dreadnought with different weapons? THIS CONFUSES ME!

You have elite marines that cost a ton and have little flexibility? Oh I know nothing about that. *blows dust off Rubrics*. By the way - you get 2 force weapon attacks with falchions on your troops, don't explode with smite, teleport for free, ATSKNF for NINETEEN points. I pay 20 for half the shots with better AP and no melee weapons what-so-ever.

*Gate of Infinity would be solid if it could affect IMPERIUM.

Cool. Deepstriking assault cents. That's what you'd get.

*Astral Aim would be solid if it was a bubble, or could be applied up to 3 times (different units).
*Vortex of Doom would be good if it hit units within 6" of the unit rather than units within 3" of the model
*Sanctuary would be solid if it was a bubble, or could be applied up to 3 times (different units).
*Hammerhand would be solid if it was a bubble, or could be applied up to 3 times (different units).
*Purge Soul has a high ceiling but would be better as a simple calculus - your leadership +1 minus opponent's *unmodified* leadership, as mortal wounds. Personally I would drop this entirely and give them a mobility power like warp time. They need it. Badly. More later.

So they need GoI AND Warp Time AND they have First to the Fray? These are absurd level buffs.
You already have the brotherhood ancient and LD9 characters for Purge Soul.

2. Upgrade Rites of Banishment, it sucks. It's got no flavor at all, and in practice is rarely worth the perils risk. I would drop it entirely and replace it with Cleansing Flame. Inflicts D6 strength 6, ap-1, 1dmg hits to every unit within 12". You can't spam this by virtue of how frigging expensive a model is. Also, librarians shouldn't have this. They should have normal smite. Seriously.

You have +1 to cast and the risk is so absurdly miniscule especially since your entire unit doesn't blow up like mine. Tell me how hard you have it though.

You can't spam it because the models are expensive? 19 point strikes...

3. Stratagems should be added. There should be a way for GK to break the psychic rule of 1 with a stratagem. There should be a way for GK to auto-cast a power, without the possibility of deny. There should be a way to get significantly increased movement.

LOL. "I want to be BA and the best psychic army in the game AT THE SAME TIME!"

GK should have a reactive defense stratagem to boost invulnerable saves to 3++ for a phase, rather than paying for 1 unit at the start of your turn. Etc.

Hey something reasonable.

4. GK models need more attacks. Purifiers lost an attack in 8th, and as it stands the bog-standard GK should be base 2 attacks. Getting into melee is inordinately difficult with this army, and they're already very expensive.

So... 3A with falchions? It's less difficult than most armies with FttF and deepstrike EVERYWHERE. I can't even warp time my units after deepstrike and I have no charge rerolls other than a 150 point monster spending an ability.

5. Paladins and Terminators need a 4++. Terminators are left out in the cold. GK terminators are the worst terminators in the entire game. A 4++ wouldn't break them, and they might see a turn of manticore fire without crumbling in seconds. This plus the extra attack would help a bit. I would also make them both T5, STR5.

You do realize that a manticore is AP2 and that a 2+ gives them a 4+ save, right? Oh let me use this moment to attack you on how clearly you don't know anything about army XYZ. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON THIS!

Psilencers should be 12 shots, str4, ap0, 1dmg. Psycannons should be strength 8, ap-2, 3 dmg, with a 36" range. GK melee weapons should ignore invulnerable saves - period. Most models will still get a save against them anyway as their AP isn't that great, but you won't see the annoying "anything better than AP-1 is worthless on your elite models that all have AP-2 or better." It would also make them far more fighty in an edition where everything is about stacking slowed invulnerable saves or wounds.

OK. So, BA plus best psychic army AND best heavy weapons AND completely invalidate daemons. A special weapon that is more effective than a hurricane bolter for less points. Psycannons that are dark reapers, but 3 units of them that can hide behind cover.

8. No mobility. This faction has no mobility. Gate of Infinity and Deep Strike [on everything]. That's it.

I just can't.

Contrary to what people with 0 experience with Grey Knights will tell you, this faction is in a very seriously bad place right now. Not sure why people who have never played GK have a vested interest in arguing how good they are - back to my original challenge - describe the GK lists that are beating you.

Contrary to your position your suggestions are absurd and you have no place telling other people what they should or should not post on.

Except with a base 4++ you could boost the invuln to 3++ with sanctuary, offering significant defense.

You're trying to be contrary and acting in bad faith. It's cool though, you still haven't answered my question: What grey knights lists are beating you?

EDIT - an example of you acting in bad faith is saying GKSS are 19 points. Until i can take them without a storm bolter, they're 21 points.

 Marmatag wrote:
Except with a base 4++ you could boost the invuln to 3++ with sanctuary, offering significant defense.

You're trying to be contrary and acting in bad faith. It's cool though, you still haven't answered my question: What grey knights lists are beating you?

EDIT - an example of you acting in bad faith is saying GKSS are 19 points. Until i can take them without a storm bolter, they're 21 points.

Oh, you got me. I forgot to add the storm bolter this time. Tell me how they're worse than rubrics.

There is one GK player here and he hasn't been around, so, couldn't tell ya. Maybe it's because of the endless droning on the internet about GK.

Bharring wrote:
Not all opinions are equal, definitely.

There are certainly some non $faction players with a better grasp of the army than $faction.

The first group's opinion has more value to me than the second, certainly. I don't like the very concept of it being shouted down.

The scientist who's investigated a subject persuades other experts by presenting his data and arguments, not by saying "the other guy isn't a scientist". The "other guy" should be the null hypothesis, not the opposite view.

For sure. In the case of Necrons, I am not going to comment because I generally like my stances on things to be informed. If i don't feel strongly one way or the other, i won't come into a thread and argue for multiple pages in die-hard fashion in favor of an opinion i've only adopted this second. It makes the forums a bad place.

And the scientific community operates fundamentally differently than these forums. There is some accountability behind your words, so people choose them more carefully. If Daedalus had to engage in a debate regarding the quality of Grey Knights which would affect his career he would approach it entirely differently (or he wouldn't and be viewed as the next Andrew Wakefield).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Except with a base 4++ you could boost the invuln to 3++ with sanctuary, offering significant defense.

You're trying to be contrary and acting in bad faith. It's cool though, you still haven't answered my question: What grey knights lists are beating you?

EDIT - an example of you acting in bad faith is saying GKSS are 19 points. Until i can take them without a storm bolter, they're 21 points.

Oh, you got me. I forgot to add the storm bolter this time. Tell me how they're worse than rubrics.

There is one GK player here and he hasn't been around, so, couldn't tell ya. Maybe it's because of the endless droning on the internet about GK.

Are rubrics the standard by which you gauge a good unit? Tell me why it matters if they're better or worse than rubrics.

Maybe it is. Maybe there is a giant conspiracy that's being enacted across the internet to keep this faction down. Vaccines cause autism! Grey Knights are excellent!

 Marmatag wrote:


If i don't feel strongly one way or the other, i won't come into a thread and argue for multiple pages in die-hard fashion in favor of an opinion i've only adopted this second. It makes the forums a bad place.

And the scientific community operates fundamentally differently than these forums. There is some accountability behind your words, so people choose them more carefully. If Daedalus had to engage in a debate regarding the quality of Grey Knights which would affect his career he would approach it entirely differently (or he wouldn't and be viewed as the next Andrew Wakefield).

Oh no. You can stop right there, buddy. You know what makes the forum a bad place? YOUR posts. I entered a debate in good faith.

Can you tell me how I adopted a die hard position in my early posts? Clearly you didn't read them. And you just carried on with your operation trying to squash any dissent you don't agree with.

YOU are beyond arrogant if you think I have no way of understanding how this army works.

I don't think they're terrible, but I have to defer to players with more experience with them.

One problem I have with them is the built-in cost of the nemesis weapons and then trading the weapon out for a special without reducing the base model cost. It just makes the special weapons unattractive. And having the nemesis weapons steers you away from having proper shooting units, because you're paying for the damn things all the time...

...But it's all very CP intensive. You run out fast.

They're more than capable, but I think they have a vision for the army that doesn't quite meet expectations.

Everyone having a force sword is cool, but you're literally adding 8 points to every single model.

Yea, maybe, but like I said I don't have tons of experience playing the army. I see builds that look really decent. Overall I think the need for CP to make them function well on top of the high cost makes it hard. The characters, for example, are crazy points. Sure they can ally IG, but many don't want to do that to make their army "work" and there's nothing wrong with that sentiment. Does it mean they need a ton of buffs? No, but a few things would be helpful.

Like some other units that are questionably priced. Purifiers are 26 points and they're basically a strike squad, but they 7 points per model for a 3" D6 smite.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I mean, mortars got a really hefty nerf with the rule of three. Average competitive guard list had like 9 mortar HWTs and now it's down to three. those are like 30pt units, they don't make much of a difference if you can only get 9 bases of them on the table.

The other thing about custodes though is that they're LUDICROUSLY cheap to collect by 40k standards. Your allied three captain biker doods is one kit. One fairly expensive kit, but one kit, for like 900ish points of HQs that come ready for their own detachment, and take 15 seconds to paint.

Both great points for sure. I still think mortars are setting themselves up to get whacked when they're literally the only thing IS takes and the one Heavy that gets totally filled with them every single time.

IS only take them in ITC to make the squad 9 instead of 10 man. It's paying a 5-point tax to not give up the kill a 10-man or higher unit point.

What makes the forums - like so many other things - bad is, in part, extremeism.

So GKs aren't in a bad spot. I'm not seeing Daed say that they're top tier. I'm seeing him say suggestions - like the 4+ across the board for GK termies - might go to far.

To bring this back to the French national example, it's like if a French national complained that he gets pulled over too easily. And his example is going 5mph over the speedlimit on the road I live on. That would be a very valid complaint, as most traffic gets more leeway than that. So I would speak up in favor of his complaint. However, if he goes on to say he shouldn't be bound by the speed limit because <french reason>, I'm going to speak up and say that's wrong. I might not be a french national but (1) I can see it as rediculous without being one and (2) such a change *would* impact non French nationals.

(Nothing against the french, except when it's funny.)

Similarly, I think you're seeing less arguments that "GK are fine" and more that you're overreacting / they're not as bad as you think / your suggestions go too far. The sorts of conversation that require nuance to be useful.

Bharring wrote:
What makes the forums - like so many other things - bad is, in part, extremeism.

So GKs aren't in a bad spot. I'm not seeing Daed say that they're top tier. I'm seeing him say suggestions - like the 4+ across the board for GK termies - might go to far.

To bring this back to the French national example, it's like if a French national complained that he gets pulled over too easily. And his example is going 5mph over the speedlimit on the road I live on. That would be a very valid complaint, as most traffic gets more leeway than that. So I would speak up in favor of his complaint. However, if he goes on to say he shouldn't be bound by the speed limit because <french reason>, I'm going to speak up and say that's wrong. I might not be a french national but (1) I can see it as rediculous without being one and (2) such a change *would* impact non French nationals.

(Nothing against the french, except when it's funny.)

Similarly, I think you're seeing less arguments that "GK are fine" and more that you're overreacting / they're not as bad as you think / your suggestions go too far. The sorts of conversation that require nuance to be useful.

I'll make it an even simpler example.

A biologist can study biomed, but still understand biochem and discuss it.

Well at the end of the day it is your prerogative to argue whatever you want.

Thousand Sons are the best army in 40k, but only slightly better than Necrons. A french national driving down my street at 35mph yelled it from the window.

 Marmatag wrote:
Well at the end of the day it is your prerogative to argue whatever you want.

Thousand Sons are the best army in 40k, but only slightly better than Necrons.

And it's your prerogative to attempt to gas light me with things I've never said.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
What makes the forums - like so many other things - bad is, in part, extremeism.

So GKs aren't in a bad spot. I'm not seeing Daed say that they're top tier. I'm seeing him say suggestions - like the 4+ across the board for GK termies - might go to far.

To bring this back to the French national example, it's like if a French national complained that he gets pulled over too easily. And his example is going 5mph over the speedlimit on the road I live on. That would be a very valid complaint, as most traffic gets more leeway than that. So I would speak up in favor of his complaint. However, if he goes on to say he shouldn't be bound by the speed limit because <french reason>, I'm going to speak up and say that's wrong. I might not be a french national but (1) I can see it as rediculous without being one and (2) such a change *would* impact non French nationals.

(Nothing against the french, except when it's funny.)

Similarly, I think you're seeing less arguments that "GK are fine" and more that you're overreacting / they're not as bad as you think / your suggestions go too far. The sorts of conversation that require nuance to be useful.

I'll make it an even simpler example.

A biologist can study biomed, but still understand biochem and discuss it.

I can do you one simpler.

Most people can read a statline and a weapons profile. They look up points, compare the points with those of units in other Codexes, and have something reasonably intelligent to say about what they read. That's based on skills we learn in elementary school.

On the other hand, endlessly repeating yourself to flood a thread, putting down anyone that doesn't share your opinion, claiming to possess special insights beyond those of everyone else, holding up false equivalencies as evidence, droning on about how hurt your feelings are while demanding everyone acknowledge them, distorting other people's positions to frame them as personal attacks, constantly proposing changes to the rules outside the proposed rules forum, dismissing all outside observations as meaningless despite valid quantitative similarities... one only learns such skills from being the White House Press Secretary or in the Grey Knights Tactics thread on Dakka.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
What makes the forums - like so many other things - bad is, in part, extremeism.

So GKs aren't in a bad spot. I'm not seeing Daed say that they're top tier. I'm seeing him say suggestions - like the 4+ across the board for GK termies - might go to far.

To bring this back to the French national example, it's like if a French national complained that he gets pulled over too easily. And his example is going 5mph over the speedlimit on the road I live on. That would be a very valid complaint, as most traffic gets more leeway than that. So I would speak up in favor of his complaint. However, if he goes on to say he shouldn't be bound by the speed limit because <french reason>, I'm going to speak up and say that's wrong. I might not be a french national but (1) I can see it as rediculous without being one and (2) such a change *would* impact non French nationals.

(Nothing against the french, except when it's funny.)

Similarly, I think you're seeing less arguments that "GK are fine" and more that you're overreacting / they're not as bad as you think / your suggestions go too far. The sorts of conversation that require nuance to be useful.

I'll make it an even simpler example.

A biologist can study biomed, but still understand biochem and discuss it.

I can do you one simpler.

Most people can read a statline and a weapons profile. They look up points, compare the points with those of units in other Codexes, and have something reasonably intelligent to say about what they read. That's based on skills we learn in elementary school.

On the other hand, endlessly repeating yourself to flood a thread, putting down anyone that doesn't share your opinion, claiming to possess special insights beyond those of everyone else, holding up false equivalencies as evidence, droning on about how hurt your feelings are while demanding everyone acknowledge them, distorting other people's positions to frame them as personal attacks, constantly proposing changes to the rules outside the proposed rules forum, dismissing all outside observations as meaningless despite valid quantitative similarities... one only learns such skills from being the White House Press Secretary or in the Grey Knights Tactics thread on Dakka.

Tech at the end of the day you are being an incredibly rude and demeaning person, Go on mods ban me for saying it. I wasn't the one making personal attacks this entire thread or in other threads that I did not report. I'm not the one who is NOT willing to leave it alone.

GK are in a bad spot. The degree at which you would move numbers around to make them better isn't something that needs to be done only to them. They are at the end of the day Space Marines and the use the Space Marine statline. Space Marines biggest failing is they can not be more effective than a fire and forget unit, because of the simple fact in 40k there is no such thing as attrition. Every new game you start fresh, there is no reason to pay for durability if the design philosophy of GW remains the same, a premium for durability and versatility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice edit.

 Quickjager wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
On the other hand, endlessly repeating yourself to flood a thread, putting down anyone that doesn't share your opinion, claiming to possess special insights beyond those of everyone else, holding up false equivalencies as evidence, droning on about how hurt your feelings are while demanding everyone acknowledge them, distorting other people's positions to frame them as personal attacks, constantly proposing changes to the rules outside the proposed rules forum, dismissing all outside observations as meaningless despite valid quantitative similarities... one only learns such skills from being the White House Press Secretary or in the Grey Knights Tactics thread on Dakka.

Tech at the end of the day you are being an incredibly rude and demeaning person, Go on mods ban me for saying it. I wasn't the one making personal attacks this entire thread or in other threads that I did not report. I'm not the one who is NOT willing to leave it alone.

GK are in a bad spot. The degree at which you would move numbers around to make them better isn't something that needs to be done only to them. They are at the end of the day Space Marines and the use the Space Marine statline. Space Marines biggest failing is they can not be more effective than a fire and forget unit, because of the simple fact in 40k there is no such thing as attrition. Every new game you start fresh, there is no reason to pay for durability if the design philosophy of GW remains the same, a premium for durability and versatility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice edit.

I haven't cited a points cost besides that of three Scorpius' in anything related to Grey Knights, QuickJaeger.

How am I moving numbers around?

For that matter, what is the difference between trolling and what you are doing?

There is nothing productive to gain from you. I hope you continue to see my "rants" in the future and ignore them as you have done so wonderfully up to this point.

 Quickjager wrote:
because of the simple fact in 40k there is no such thing as attrition.

Except there is though? Both sides lose models over the course of the game. That's pretty much the definition of attrition.

I think what he means is, if you lose the game with most of your models on the table, that doesn't help you in the next game. So being durable without a way to win is not really helpful. Durability doesn't win games alone.

 Quickjager wrote:
There is nothing productive to gain from you. I hope you continue to see my "rants" in the future and ignore them as you have done so wonderfully up to this point.

Well, listen, I did put some work into explaining my concerns with our exchanges on this forum. I'm an adult, and maybe we should focus on maintaining a productive relationship.

Most of our interaction has been in the Tactics thread. I've been saying that some of your posts don't actually deal with tactics, they deal with your feelings about the army. Like this one, where you say GK are in a bad spot, I'm moving numbers around, and the rules need to be changed. The challenges for me are:

- You have said the equivalent of "GK are in a bad spot" 10 times since you and I started interacting, along with 7 other people. It's fine to say something like that once or twice, it's a whole other thing when self-defeating comments flood a forum and drown out other discussion.

- I have not cited any numbers about Grey Knights on Dakka, related to point costs, performance of the army, or any other subject. I have conversations about those topics on other forums, but not here.

- Discussions about rules belong in the Proposed Rules forum. While this is not the Tactics thread, it would be appropriate to post discussions like that to PR so that others can discuss Tactics.

That's not the only time you have distorted my responses. Like in this post, where you claim my comments about Storm Ravens are intentionally insensitive to people who prefer to play Terminators. The challenges for me are:

- While I appreciate sarcasm, even when it's directed at me, it feels like you can't handle it quite as well. I honestly feel like the only way to avoid hurt feelings on your part is to ignore your posts.

- I try to be clear in what I write so that I'm not being misquoted. While I understand some confusion may occur, this seems like a very deliberate attempt to frame my comments as a personal attack.

- I should be allowed to suggest people seek alternative opinions about Grey Knights. I mean, your opinion is not the only one that matters, and I'm not sure that response was deserved.

Now, I recognize you make some valid points in your responses, and I would probably want to respond to them if they had anything to do with what we were talking about. Changing the subject to score points every time you say something you later realize is wrong is not exactly forthright. While you may have something to say about Space Marines and points, there's a better way to make that point that does not involve the other things that go on in our conversations. This is something you do commonly in discussions, and it's what I'm referring to when I talk about a rant.

Please forgive me if I took all this the wrong way. My impression is that you are a troll and have been deliberately seeking to incite conflict with me for about a month. I am not the only person who noticed and believe we should be honest and open in our discussion about how to avoid such behavior.

Maybe we can come to a gentlemen's agreement on how we will conduct ourselves in the future. Here's what I want to suggest as a way forward.

1) Limit conversations to the topic of the forum. Tactics are discussions about the actions you take to achieve a goal, anecdotes about how sad you are about Grey Knights are a better fit for the Off Topic forum. There's a place for everything on Dakka, really think about what's most appropriate.

2) If you have a new idea to share, share it! But if you are responding to something someone, try to limit the response to things that are relevant to the original point. This may help you avoid the appearance of deliberately misquoting people.

3) Try to avoid sarcasm in your posts. Your strong suit is when you are offering ideas about how to construct lists, which units to choose, what units perform better than others. It feels like you don't like it much when people respond with sarcasm.

4) I totally recognize you have all this experience with Grey Knights. Try to be more understanding that others may have their own opinions and want to share them. Some people may not have as much experience with this army, but have been playing 40k since 2nd edition and know how to read a f$*$ing datasheet. It's not rocket science, pretending it is doesn't make you look better.

5) Try to limit the number of times you say how bad Grey Knights are. Maybe once a week, or once a month? If you really feel that strongly about it, maybe just put it in your sig and save the rest of us the trouble.

With that post this thread jumped the shark.

 Marmatag wrote:
I think what he means is, if you lose the game with most of your models on the table, that doesn't help you in the next game. So being durable without a way to win is not really helpful. Durability doesn't win games alone.

If both sides have the same damage output, but one side is more durable than the other, wouldn't that mean that logically the more durable side would win in a battle of attrition?

I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.

 mew28 wrote:
I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.

Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.

Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.

I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?