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.

I think everyone's best bet is to wait and see how the next round of 'Ard Boyz goes. From the lists I have seen posted, I would say (as stated by many, it's just an opinion) that not many of the lists that even won were very competitive. A lot of people just showed up to play a fun 2500 points game, and many of the actual tournaments had less than ten people showing.

I myself am quite curious how the higher bracket rounds will go, as people either swap armies completely or at least tool them up better.

Fearspect wrote:I think everyone's best bet is to wait and see how the next round of 'Ard Boyz goes. From the lists I have seen posted, I would say (as stated by many, it's just an opinion) that not many of the lists that even won were very competitive. A lot of people just showed up to play a fun 2500 points game, and many of the actual tournaments had less than ten people showing.

I myself am quite curious how the higher bracket rounds will go, as people either swap armies completely or at least tool them up better.

I agree with this, especially on the point that many lists going to round 2 were not very optimized. I think it has a lot to due with the poor tournament turn-out this year. Our club here split up so we wouldn't have to play each other and it's a good thing we did because none of the locations had more than 12 players, including us. In fact, the store I went to only had 3, including myself and my friend. We could have brought literally anything and we'd have made it to the semi-finals.

7. 3 Prisms can stand up to all the Lootas? Depends on who gets first turn I guess. If the Orks go first, your Prisms won't do much thereafter. If the Prisms go first, they better kill some Lootas.

Can't you just start in reserve (unlike the orks), if you think lootas are gonne ba problem?

thehod wrote:

Elessar wrote:WOW! Finally reached the end. Comment time, yay!


5) thehod: Please reread YOUR codex. Slugga =/= Shoota.

can you show me where I said that? I didnt see it.

Sorry...it was Hulksmash who said

Hulksmash wrote:You have read the Ork codex right? The fact that sluggas are 18" (so 24" if i'm not running)

- my bad, sorry again. lol


Anyway...

@Primarch: Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought. Let me rephrase.
Anyone who plays Infantry as though they had a 360* LOS plays the game wrong. Clear?


@number9dream:

Yes, although in DoW it wouldn't be an issue. Also, I play on tables with corners. Just saying.

Hulksmash wrote:Wow Frank, not only do you not logically address my objections but you then head off on tangents. If you don't have answers for my questions it's ok. You can just ignore me

Yaw yaw.

Quick question, what do you consider a horde?

Any army whose strategy is based around throwing more infantry at you than your guns can handle.

How many models does it take to make a horde?

More than your opponent's guns can handle, which really depends on your points level. Say 1500, because that's the points level 180 Orks are supposed to rock at. With a 1500pt Eldar Horde it's an Avatar and maybe 80+ Concealed Guardians (so 4 full squads and a Lock each), depending how many Wave Serpent-riding DAs and Prisms you want to include, and for the Guard I'd say at least 3 IPs with 3 ISquads each tooled up with with a Commissar, plus a couple of tanks (Demolishers are coo', but a couple of Devil Dogs and a 2-strong squad of Valks run nicely as well) and something in the HQ slots that'll make the whole thing hang together.

I'm curious as my response to your absurd statement that Tau can deal with most "horde" lists needs that information. Just because you got rocked by tau doesn't mean everyone will be or that it's the greatest list ever. Don't get me wrong I think Tau can make a very strong list but it is one that suffers against horde/target rich armies.

Double-think at it's finest. How can they make a strong list if they struggle against horde armies? If they struggle against target-rich armies (which is, like, every 5th Edition list ever) they'd be royally boned, wouldn't they, because EVERYTHING is a target.

If everything in your list ISN'T a target, i.e if I can ignore something you're bringing either because it serves no useful purpose OR because it sucks and can't hurt me, then your list fu is weak.

There are a lot of things in the Ork Codex that can be ignored when they turn up on the table, or at worst taken out quickly with cursory application of firepower. 30-man Mobs are one of those things.

Oh and as for your last statement you either didn't get my point or your deliberately avoiding it.

what is this i dont even

My point was the last 3 games of a 5 game tournament means that those "super-friends" and dark angel armies aren't going to be there.

Why not say that, then? Prove to my satisfaction that no pooball armies are playing in the last 3 games. Apparently the bloke who won the UK GT was playing a pooball Eldar army, so that's that theory out the window. NB: Pooball armies do not necessarily have to be built from a pooball Codex.

Tyrannids might but that is because they are still a very strong list if built properly.

ORLY? They're an annoying army when built properly. Then again so are Orks.

Not the Nidzilla of old but a new hybrid style w/deathspitter spam is just nasty.

Can people stop saying "spam" when they don't mean spam? "Spam" Deathspitters? How? How do you do this? Warriors? That's not good, is it? Or maybe you run lots of Monstrous Creatures, which makes your list a Nidzilla list; which makes it suck.

Yes, you might get one random non optomized list in the top 8 but you won't see them in the top 4.

You sure about that?

My nid's make short work of most almost all armies (excluding LR heavy Black Templars, the scissor to my rock ).

Again, how?

Yelling Orks are bad because the people playing against them suck is a little silly. But we're all entitled to our opinions. Not to mention maybe your right and they do suck across the Atlantic though even your results (GT's which are far more cutthroat than ours) don't show that but hey everyone they played against were horrible players so it's all good

Take out the bit about the Atlantic and, wayhey, you're on the trolley!

Sarigar wrote:@ Frank: What about if the Ork army isn't completely optimized?

You can't optimise an Ork list unless you possess powers of divination. How do you optimise something that relies on your opponent being a gimp?

What I also will agree with from what I've been observing. Folks have a hard time building a balanced list that can handle any army. Sure, there can be an army that can easily deal with 180 orks, but then it goes against an IG armored column and gets pasted.

In which case it isn't optimised; or if it is, the player is Doin' It Wrong.

My Orks in particular have difficulty with armor 14 (big surprise). In the last two tourneys (2500 pt Ard Boyz, 1850 pt RTT), I've ran into the following armor 14 tanks:

Ard Boyz
Game 1. 2 Land Raiders
Game 2. 1 Land Raider
Game 3. 4 Land Raiders

RTT
Game 1. 1 Leman Russ
Game 2. 0 (Eldar army, Eldrad/Avatar combo)
Game 3. 2 Leman Russ

I did not destroy every armor 14 tank in any game. However, it wasn't necessary to do this in order to win.

Of course not; 2500pt lists with 2 Raiders and 1 Raider hardly force you to deal with the AV14. Oh sure it's on the table, doing what a Raider does, but at 2500pts one or two of them isn't something you can't work around, regardless of what army you're playing. In the case of 4-Raiders it's slightly more difficult to understand quite how he managed to get through a game without forcing you to deal with them, since, regardless of what your Ork lists consists of, the chances are each Raider and it's cargo would be fit for at least a quarter of your entire army. Either he took Redeemers, or he was Doin' It Wrong. Which, to be honest, are two sides of the same coin.

Inb4 "AMAGAD REDEEMERS RAWK VERSIS ORKS U NOOB" Redeemers rock versus nothing. Lern2AV14.

Folks can copy any 'uber' list on the internet and play it. However, the armies don't play themselves. Somewhere along the line, player skill has to be factored.

I think this is where I think Frank's arguement falls down. We don't play this game on paper. There will always be players of various skill levels and armylists of varying opinions of effectiveness.

At least that's where it WOULD fall down, if I was trying to claim that taking NetDecks to tourneys was a guaranteed success. It's not. You can optimise your list all day long; if you don't know how to play it you're going to get stiffed. Worse still if you take a NetDeck and expect to win with it without Getting It.

A good player can do well with any codex. Frank, you read Stelek's blog and seem to pretty much agree with him. You do realize he took a Demonhunter army to a no comp GT last year and went 5-0. He utelized a less than stellar codex and still won. Like him or not, I give him credit in regards to player skill. Something, you seem to not want to give credence to.

And he did so with a 7 Raider list, if I recall. That's not balanced in any shape or form, and -- guess what? -- relies totally on opponents who aren't equipped to handle it to be successful. Stelek himself admits that he won not because the Daemonhunters are a competetive Codex, but because his opposition is poor; having played Daemonhunters for a number of years I feel qualified to state that, unless his opposition truly did suck in one way or another, he wouldn't have gone 5-0. The change in game mechanics made a lot of stuff that was borderline useful before (shooty =][= Retinues, GK Dreads) a load of balls, and stuff that was useless (Daemonhosts, Purgation Squads) even moreso. The only reason the Codex isn't a complete dead dog is because their basic Troops are reasonably nasty (Grey Knights are, out and out, one of the best infantry-killing units in the game (not point-for-point, they're too expensive) and ISTs allow you to add cheap special weapons to any Imperial list), a lot of their wargear is coo' even in 5th Edition (some of it, like Psychic Hoods and Smoke Launchers, because of Codex creep, and some of it like Psycannons and Incinerators because it's just awesome), people like Mystics, and of course they can Raider-spam.

Yeah, anyway. DH rant over. Point is he took an army list that does exactly what the Orks do (relying on opponent gimpage), except to a greater extent (7x 14-14-14 Ohnoes!), to a tournament and won with it. What exactly does that tell us?

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:It is quite mind-boggling how anyone so naturally assumes that most people will take crappy, non-competetive lists to tournaments

People taking piss-ball lists to events is a safer bet than the tide coming in.

- everyone except, for some or the other reason, Nids, Daemons and Orks apparently.

No no, you've gotten the wrong end of the stick. You can't build a hard, balanced list from any of these Codexes; the reason they go to tournaments and place well is because the opposition they're up against sucks.

Is there some substance used in the production of their codices that can be held accountable for this phenomenon? Do their books require a higher IQ to buy than other codices? Are they all played by Stelek or his clones?

Reading the thread will answer all of these questions for you.

The assumption that all those Eldar, SM, CSM...players are readily taking uncompetative lists into a competetive environment is not very convincing. There hasn't been any "evidence" of this apart from some anecdotes of "lists I've seen". What lists do people *actually* take to the UKGT or any equivalent?

Wych Cults, footslogging Sisters, 500pts of Lysander and TH/SS Terminators (Awesome? Yes. In a 1500pt army? No), Superfriends, Mechdar with the infantry deployed on the table, MonoGod Daemons lists, Lictors... the list goes on.

But that is not all. It is then also assumed that people do not play Orks outside of tournaments, so that their peers are not used to them.

No, no it's not...

Seriously, re-read the thread. I can't be arsed to digest and regurgitate it every time someone new comes in, misreads the bugger, and then gets on their high horse about stuff that nobody is even saying.

My friend can't really afford GW prices, so he spent months and months carving a "counts-as" Ork army using stone from a local quarry.


I can honestly say it's the hardest army I've ever faced.


Boom Boom. I'm here all night.

Ork players are still waiting for all these alleged "better players with better armies" to come knock them off of their perch.

So far...noones stepped up to the challenge, Orks are still winning tourney's.



I think I just heard a toilet flush.

And your point is...

A good player can do well with any codex. Frank, you read Stelek's blog and seem to pretty much agree with him. You do realize he took a Demonhunter army to a no comp GT last year and went 5-0. He utelized a less than stellar codex and still won. Like him or not, I give him credit in regards to player skill. Something, you seem to not want to give credence to.


And he did so with a 7 Raider list, if I recall. That's not balanced in any shape or form, and -- guess what? -- relies totally on opponents who aren't equipped to handle it to be successful. Stelek himself admits that he won not because the Daemonhunters are a competetive Codex, but because his opposition is poor; having played Daemonhunters for a number of years I feel qualified to state that, unless his opposition truly did suck in one way or another, he wouldn't have gone 5-0. The change in game mechanics made a lot of stuff that was borderline useful before (shooty =][= Retinues, GK Dreads) a load of balls, and stuff that was useless (Daemonhosts, Purgation Squads) even moreso. The only reason the Codex isn't a complete dead dog is because their basic Troops are reasonably nasty (Grey Knights are, out and out, one of the best infantry-killing units in the game (not point-for-point, they're too expensive) and ISTs allow you to add cheap special weapons to any Imperial list), a lot of their wargear is coo' even in 5th Edition (some of it, like Psychic Hoods and Smoke Launchers, because of Codex creep, and some of it like Psycannons and Incinerators because it's just awesome), people like Mystics, and of course they can Raider-spam.

Yeah, anyway. DH rant over. Point is he took an army list that does exactly what the Orks do (relying on opponent gimpage), except to a greater extent (7x 14-14-14 Ohnoes!), to a tournament and won with it. What exactly does that tell us?

EDIT: found the first link for the results of his LVGT last year. Went 5-0 with Demonhunter. It also links to his armylist. Not 7 Land Raiders.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/217705.page

Wrong tourney, Frank. The 7 Land Raider list was the Ard Boyz. I was referring to a GT that did not utelize 7 Land Raiders. It's posted in the battle reports somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.

He actually tied one game against Eldar. So he didnt win all his games.

My daemonhunter list is actually very effective. I run 5 land raiders (2 crusaders, 3 standard). I have grey knight squads inside, except for 2 that have inquisitors. I win a good majority of my games with this list, as it is very good against most all-comers, typically there is just not enough anti-tank. I thought orks were a pushover army.

Then I played the first round of 'Ard Boyz against a 3 Battlewagon list with 2 full squads of lootas. Did the battle wagons survive? No. Did the lootaz survive? One squad did. Who won? Orks. If I killed some of his guys, it didn't matter. He controlled the objectives, and he protected the objectives he controlled. I don't know if orks can ever overpower an opponent. But they can win games in 5th edition, they can take objectives arguably better than any other troop in the game (30 fearless orks is hard to take off of an objective). They can take their kill points too (30 orks vs 10 marines is an attrition battle, and if orks get the charge...). How did he win? On every charge he got his orks all the way around my vehicles. When his powerclaw killed it, my grey knights couldn't get out, and were killed. I understand that a lot of units can do this, but with 30 models it is a lot easier.

I don't care for orks, I will never play a game with them. But do they suck? are they a lower tier army? No.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:How did he win? On every charge he got his orks all the way around my vehicles. When his powerclaw killed it, my grey knights couldn't get out, and were killed. I understand that a lot of units can do this, but with 30 models it is a lot easier.

I understand what you're saying, but how in the world did it ever happen like what you describe? If you were tank shocking through his mobs, Death or Glory is Death 9 times out of 10 and he needs 6's to hit you while your Hurricane Bolters pop off 6 every turn.

I just can't help but think you weren't using your LR to max effectiveness.

@Frank

Just two quick things and I'm bowing out of this thread.

1) A strong army will still have problems with their rock army. You give me any build of any army and i'll show you a solid take all comers list that is the paper to your rock. You'll say well if everyone built competatively then those take all comers wouldn't be there which is silly but seems to be what you really believe. Maybe competative 40k only has 4 viable army builds according to you.

Again you didn't understand what I was saying about the Tau or your choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Which is your choice and cool but your still yelling orks suck with no proof to back it up.

2) In Regard to the Tyrannid comments.

12 Warriors in 2 squads (at 2k) w/12 deathspitters and +1st is a lot of boom. Add in 4 Carnies (3 heavy carnies) and 2 Hive Tyrants and you've got a very very respectable firepower list that can brawl up close. You use gaunts and create a leveled cover system which keeps your shooters and heavy hitters safe as they close. I said spam and I meant spam. 12 St6 Blast Templates is more than any other army out there can put out so it is spamming an excellent unit.

At 2k, SM can easily have 16 S7 Blasts.

Guard can have far more.

You still haven't addressed the small matter of your ignorance, calling a Slugga a Shoota.

But I forgive you - "you didn't understand what I was saying about the Shoota or your choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Which is your choice and cool but your still yelling orks rule with no proof to back it up. "
lolz. Edited quotes ftw.

Elessar wrote:
1) I own over 10k of Orks, and have played them most of the 15 years I've played 40k.

Neither the amount of models you own nor your past experience with older rule sets have any bearing on the question of whether Orks are competetive in 5th.

Frank Fugger wrote:
People taking piss-ball lists to events is a safer bet than the tide coming in.

Yes, let me correct myself: I’m sure some do, and I’m sure others don’t. Even skimming the abundance of BatReps here and elsewhere is ample evidence of that. Some go go great lengths to ensure they stand a chance while others simply take what they have painted or like best at that point.

Even then there is simply no good reason why only Orks (or shall we say: supposedly weak codices) would show up with a competetive list - especially when that isn't even possible from those books, which is what you assert so forcefully. There is no reason why they should show up with a better list than others. Some people have suggested that because the die-hard Ork players had to put up with an outdated codex for so long, they have gotten better at playing than people with more “forgiving” (newer, more competitive) armies but I don't think that is right. Despite being the target of much ridicule, SM players (or Eldar or IG players) will and can be just as experienced.

No no, you've gotten the wrong end of the stick. You can't build a hard, balanced list from any of these Codexes; the reason they go to tournaments and place well is because the opposition they're up against sucks.

So you keep asserting, yes. To be honest - whoah, extremely bad pun avoided at the last second! -, I believe that this will remain a minority opinion for the foreseeable future though. Not that I think that you care but hey.

Frank Fugger wrote:

But that is not all. It is then also assumed that people do not play Orks outside of tournaments, so that their peers are not used to them.

No, no it's not...

It isn’t? This sentence evoked lots of mental question marks: "If people stopped gearing their armies towards playing people they play every week and instead built them towards taking on 5th Edition armies, the Orks would most likely stop doing well."

1) People gear their armies towards what they usually play against.
2) People play against Orks.

Ergo, they at least take Orks into account. Why in all the heavens do they then not fare any better? Why would they be stupid if those lists they actually bring are geared to tackle Orks, too, since if they play them and gear towards what they play against this is the conclusion? I’m afraid simply calling everyone stupid doesn’t cut it.

People take stupid, uncompetetive lists. People gear their armies towards what they are used to play against. If they indeed play against Orks much, then gearing against them (as well) is neither stupid nor uncompetetive but quite reasonable - regardless of what we think about the quality of the codex, there's no doubt that there are many Ork players at tournaments.

If however the lists are as stupid as you think, then they are not optimized to deal with Orks, and that can only mean that people do not play against them. In every other case, they would take that into account. Whatever way I look at it, your reasoning breaks down at one point or the other.

Regardless of these considerations, there is another aspect that I do not understand: If the Ork codex is not a proper 5th edition codex, then how does optimizing other lists to tackle 5th edition codices help against one that isn't?

Seriously, re-read the thread. I can't be arsed to digest and regurgitate it every time someone new comes in, misreads the bugger, and then gets on their high horse about stuff that nobody is even saying.

Keep your internet platitudes, they bore me.

*Yawn*

You're wrong. My experience shows that, irrespective of the ruleset, I have a lot of experience playing the race. To clarify further, though, just for you - I have played, with my Orks, over 60 games, this year alone. I have literally used every unit in the Dex, and every character, except, strangely, Grotsnik. Experience gives me the ability to compare this Ork Dex to previous ones.

I preferred the last one - when Burnas could penetrate armour, and Orks had more than a snowballs chance in hell against TH/SS Termies.

The choppa rule does not affect invulnerable saves so thunder termies could roll their 3+. There is no way the old codex is in any shape or form better than the new one.

Burnas. Zzap Gunz. Speed Freeks Codex in general. Tankbustas. Choppa rule.

I think you'll find a 3+ is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than a 2+.

Elessar wrote:*Yawn*

You're wrong. My experience shows that, irrespective of the ruleset, I have a lot of experience playing the race. To clarify further, though, just for you - I have played, with my Orks, over 60 games, this year alone. I have literally used every unit in the Dex, and every character, except, strangely, Grotsnik. Experience gives me the ability to compare this Ork Dex to previous ones.

The reason your experience means nothing in this debate is because there is no way to compare your 60 games to the current tournement atmosphere.

Your experience means nothing if your 60 games are played with the skill of a partially slowed 7 year old. Especially if you can safely assume that Tournement players are reletively competant adults playing armies that they're familiar with. (we can)

-btw, I'm not saying that you ARE this inept. Just trying to illustrate why citing experience is meaningless in a debate such as this.

I've seen Tournament players that, literally, are playing their first game of 40k. A MAJORITY of tourny players may be relatively experienced with their army. Doesn't mean a thing.

The majority of players in the UK ToS played the Heats competitively, then broke out the fluff armies for the Finals, because all they cared about was qualification. Doesn't mean a thing if Orks beat them.

Of course, you're right, if I had little/no ability those results would be irrelevant. Did I neglect to mention that most of those games were in a Tournament? Ooops.

A League Tournament, which I won with more points than third and fourth place guys put together, and then half that total added again. With Orks.

Some of those players were scrubs. Mostly, it was because I played few tooled lists. A mediocre list struggles against 20 Nob Bikes, which was fine to run, because it was 6 months ago, and they were still fairly good.

One game, I tabled an IG player with 300 points more than me, in 5 turns. He went first.

So, even if my opponents weren't, it's pretty safe to say, I WAS playing at a Tourny level.

Fine, then we play THIS game all thread long....

You post what you just did...

I can respond with the total opposite.

I'm a tournement player myself since '96 and been playing 40k since '88. I've also got HEAPS of experience playing as and against Orks in AND out of Tournement during that time. Myself as a gamer rarely loose and typically get within top 10 or so whenever I go to a major tournement, GT or Indie.

It's MY experience that Orks can make a competetive/balanced list.

...I just trumped your arguement.


Now if we can have some actual DEBATE on the subject...since personal experience is not valid in this discussion...

It's too bad that everyone kind of figured out how to deal with Nob Bikers, and there are really no tools left to deal with a mechanized force anymore...

Or are people going to start debating the merits of sitting a warboss with a power klaw in front of a landraider?

Hardly. All you did was provide evidence that wasn't relevant to 5th.

As I originally said, the previous experience was for purposes of illustrating that I know how to play, and how to play Orks. It was also to compare this Dex to the previous ones, which, in my view, were better from a purely balance perspective.

Orks could be balanced before, sure. Now? No.

Maybe if you bothered to answer any of the other 10 points I raised I could be bothered with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

Grey Knight Luke wrote:How did he win? On every charge he got his orks all the way around my vehicles. When his powerclaw killed it, my grey knights couldn't get out, and were killed. I understand that a lot of units can do this, but with 30 models it is a lot easier.

I understand what you're saying, but how in the world did it ever happen like what you describe? If you were tank shocking through his mobs, Death or Glory is Death 9 times out of 10 and he needs 6's to hit you while your Hurricane Bolters pop off 6 every turn.

I just can't help but think you weren't using your LR to max effectiveness.

In addition, a LR is over 4" deep. Therefore, it is impossible to charge the rear with a squad that didn't already either start surrounding it, in which case MOVE, or in an illegal position, in which case, call a Judge.

Here is what I know. I have won more games with orks than I've lost. I did this as well with the 3rd edition codex. I've won more local games than I've lost. I've won more "away" games than I've lost. I have lost my fair share of games don't get me wrong. I've played numerous opponents of assorted skill level. I've beaten the best players locally a few times each. Probably lost more than I won against them. I've travelled to tournaments and gotten the "wow! you beat player X! He rarely loses" I've also gotten "Don't feel bad about losing to player Y, he always wins". The common denominator in all of this is that I had fun. Win or lose.

Orks are a fun army. Who cares if they are top tier, or if Pedro Kantor lists will krump them. The pro ork crowd will not convince the anti ork crowd of their position and vice versa. You guys might as well beat your heads against the wall, you are likely to get more out of it than this debate.

I feel orks are top tier because they are my favorite army. I'm pro Ork all the way. I have no scientific evidence that they are top tier, I just know. No one can change my opinion of that. just like no one will convince Frank otherwise. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Just play your army because you like it. Don't feel compelled to bludgeon someone else with "my opinion is right and yours is wrong!" Just have fun. It is afterall a game of toy soldiers!

Well, I've wasted enough time on the clock. Back to work!

You're missing the point Elessor.

Personal experience has no place in this debate because your personel experience is reletive to you and you only.

At least the tournement results give us a statistic to go by. Its still essentially "personal experience" but at least its across a much broader player base than what you yourself can give us.

If 20 critics give a restraunt a great rating and say their sushi is great...thats a much safer bet than listening to your opinion of how much "their sushi sucks", regardless of how much sushi you say you've eaten in the past.

Basically, we dont care how much of a 40k "God" you are. Any points you make based on your personal experience are meaningless in this debate.

You're missing the point. Or rather, points. The ones I raised earlier you continue to ignore. You could at least spell my name correctly, also. How hard is it to read?

Elessar wrote:You're missing the point. Or rather, points. The ones I raised earlier you continue to ignore. You could at least spell my name correctly, also. How hard is it to read?

First off Ellezzor, I know you're a big fan of Stelek, but you should take a hint from his sordid escapades and realise that outright rudeness accomplishes 2 things

1. banning from sites
2. making you look like an a$$ that noone really cares to listen to despite any valid points that you make

Second my only 'point' is that your personal experience here means nothing. I'm not argueing your stance in this thread at this time.

Third, reading must be pretty hard for some people...since you've yet to "get" what I'm talking about.

I 'get' your drivel Dedshun. I'm just not interested in people who have no points to make.

I'm not a big fan by any means, let's disavow everyone of that notion now. I don't know him, but I like what he's trying to do - make people better at the game. Maybe you'd be happier only playing scrubs all day, getting hollow wins that require little or no effort, but us grown ups prefer a challenge.

I've only been rude to people in response to them being an ass. I could really care less about being banned from Dakka - I don't WANT banned, but I really don't care, if the powers that be can't take dissenting opinion, fine. I think people should be helped to become better at the game. Just because your friends don't like him doesn't mean you have to feel the same, and, from where I'm standing, he's made as positive an impact on the game as any other individual.

It's refreshing to read his comments - even if he's wrong, he's never two-faced about it. At least, in my experience. Then again...supposedly that means nothing.

Elessar wrote:I'm just not interested in people who have no points to make.

So, my point that states that your personal experience has no bearing on this discussion is no point at all.

Gotcha.

Must be nice to be able to stick your head in the sand whenever you want to and keep on "debating".


EDIT: btw, misspelling my name doesnt bother me, just so everyone is clear that you're losing THAT race. Happy to offend you.

All experience is personal to someone, including tournament outcomes.