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.

WA is selling generic miniatures that anyone can use across a huge cross section of games, PB is sellinga game and miniatures very specifically for that game.

The two are not the same.

For me it is just about product vs price. Does the quality & quantity of miniatures I am getting justify the price paid? Certainly I am willing to give a new company/small business some benefit of the doubt, but PB is out of that grace period and quite explicitly aiming to be one of the bigger things out there--that means they are going to be compared as such.

chaos0xomega wrote:
WA is selling generic miniatures that anyone can use across a huge cross section of games, PB is sellinga game and miniatures very specifically for that game.

The two are not the same.

To me, it sounds like Conquest has a smaller, more delicate target customer base. Shouldn’t they try to make the product more appealing outside of a narrow niche rather than less appealing?

Dunno if it's been mentioned here, top four lists from Adepticon:

https://www.para-bellum.com/adepticon-2022-final-four-tournament-lists/

Nice to see how well-rounded they all are, at least within the admittedly narrow confines of only models that have been officially released. I like that there are both combined arms and more specialized forces showing up. Hope to see it continue.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1482076494

There was a Lore Happy Hour yesterday. They talked about upcoming factions.
To sum it up:

City States (Steampunk Greeks, coming next year)
Weaver Courts (Spires that infused with nature)
Sorcerer Kings (Arabic themed math wizards)
Famine (Cosmic horror Chulhu faction)

At the end they also hinted Hel and High Asgard.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For me it is just about product vs price. Does the quality & quantity of miniatures I am getting justify the price paid? Certainly I am willing to give a new company/small business some benefit of the doubt, but PB is out of that grace period and quite explicitly aiming to be one of the bigger things out there--that means they are going to be compared as such.

If they're being compared to "one of the bigger things out there", then the point of comparison is Games Workshop, not Wargames Atlantic (which is still an extremely small new company), and in that regards PB is competitive.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
WA is selling generic miniatures that anyone can use across a huge cross section of games, PB is sellinga game and miniatures very specifically for that game.

The two are not the same.

To me, it sounds like Conquest has a smaller, more delicate target customer base. Shouldn’t they try to make the product more appealing outside of a narrow niche rather than less appealing?

PBs product is a game, not miniatures. Wargames Atlantics product is miniatures, not a game. Two completely different business models and target markets and audiences. PB is trying to develop a specific community, following, and brand linked to a specific franchise and IP they have developed. Wargames Atlantic is ultimately just pushing plastic.

Perhaps I have a distorted view from reading Auticus’ posts as indicative of the community’s opinions, but haven’t they been losing the gamer crowd?

Also, getting shades of Medge, Antares, Mythic Americas, Warcaster neo Mechanika, Dust Warfare, Project Z and all the other “selling the game” games.

I've seen the game generally growing in online communities, but shrinking in my own community - in part due to the game itself being sloppily managed. Can't say price point has been a particular problem, but rules being generally sloppy and it being an "actual rule"(or policy, more like) that discord posts by people with special colored names are RAW until said otherwise has caused people to shy away towards more gamey-games.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Perhaps I have a distorted view from reading Auticus’ posts as indicative of the community’s opinions, but haven’t they been losing the gamer crowd?

Also, getting shades of Medge, Antares, Mythic Americas, Warcaster neo Mechanika, Dust Warfare, Project Z and all the other “selling the game” games.

I don't say this lightly; do not take Auticus' posts, predictions, or stat breakdowns as anything more than his personal opinion. Whatever analytical methods he uses end up being wrong so often they are of no practical use, and his personal perspective is skewed to say the least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
I've seen the game generally growing in online communities, but shrinking in my own community - in part due to the game itself being sloppily managed. Can't say price point has been a particular problem, but rules being generally sloppy and it being an "actual rule"(or policy, more like) that discord posts by people with special colored names are RAW until said otherwise has caused people to shy away towards more gamey-games.

Yeah, I know I tried to communicate to them more than once that the sloppy rules writing was a serious problem but I was brushed off. Though to clarify; the game is great, it's the instructions on how to play it that are bad. My advice is to just stick with whatever is on the official documents and disregard anything else.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I've seen the game generally growing in online communities, but shrinking in my own community - in part due to the game itself being sloppily managed. Can't say price point has been a particular problem, but rules being generally sloppy and it being an "actual rule"(or policy, more like) that discord posts by people with special colored names are RAW until said otherwise has caused people to shy away towards more gamey-games.

Yeah, I know I tried to communicate to them more than once that the sloppy rules writing was a serious problem but I was brushed off. Though to clarify; the game is great, it's the instructions on how to play it that are bad. My advice is to just stick with whatever is on the official documents and disregard anything else.

Agreed on all counts. I try to stress the importance of updating RAW to match Discord rulings but get brushed off a lot. There is at least 2 vanguards taking this pretty seriously and as I understand it internally pushing for it, so I'm hoping the next few updates will clear up a lot of the issues.

I'm getting to a point where I may just re-write the whole ruleset (not change any rules, just write them in a way that makes sense) because it would take less effort for me to do that than continually re-explain rules in my local community.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm getting to a point where I may just re-write the whole ruleset (not change any rules, just write them in a way that makes sense) because it would take less effort for me to do that than continually re-explain rules in my local community.

Flashbacks to the great debate as to what constitutes a centre of a square
Shiver

Yeah absolutely, some rules are just amazingly sloppily put together tbh.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm getting to a point where I may just re-write the whole ruleset (not change any rules, just write them in a way that makes sense) because it would take less effort for me to do that than continually re-explain rules in my local community.

Flashbacks to the great debate as to what constitutes a centre of a square
Shiver

Yeah absolutely, some rules are just amazingly sloppily put together tbh.

Center of a square or rectangle is easy, but what about a unit with uneven ranks? What is the center of a unit with 3 in the front rank and 1 in the rear? Presumably one would draw the center as if the back rank was full since that is the only practical way to do it, but rules as written...

My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

This sort of thing is more or less a problem caused by modern technology - there was a time when rulesets with unclear instruction couldn't be patched in realtime by the authors (or their designated henchmen) via online channels or issued out to the community via an online FAQ, etc. In those days, short of writing a letter to the author (which was encouraged by rulesets which featured mailing addresses for the authors) to get clarification, it was up to your local playgroup to make up an agreed upon houserule. Ultimately the discord clarifications by vanguards or whatever is just an overglorified houserule and not one that is universally recognized (my local group is hardly the only one out there that has no discord presence) - feel free to ignore them and fix the problems you encounter locally.

The problem the above brain trust is discussing is one hundred percent not a real problem except the very small subset of folks living on discord.

chaos0xomega wrote:
My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

And really the Conquest ruleset works totally fine because of this. The actual rules issues are generally solved with a bit of common sense (see above) which won't work if Conquest wants to move more towards tournaments being a thing but are plenty good enough for regular people playing regular games.

The real problem is the wording. Even rules that are mechanically airtight often end up explained in such a convoluted fashion the average person needs to read it twice. That is before getting into counterintuitive elements or places where complexity has been artificially created (line of sight for shooting comes to mind). The bedrock, how the rules work and how gameplay unfolds, are excellent. A few rough edges sure, but overall a very well designed game. That is the hardest part and something PB does quite well--making it all the more mystifying that they could mess up so badly on the comparatively simple task of explaining those rules.

I don't say this lightly; do not take Auticus' posts, predictions, or stat breakdowns as anything more than his personal opinion. Whatever analytical methods he uses end up being wrong so often they are of no practical use, and his personal perspective is skewed to say the least.

While everything anyone says is their own personal opinion, you better have some backup of all the things that I am "frequently wrong about" other than your own skewed and biased opinion or you may soon find out about slander and how you can be held accountable for it.

Even when you think you are anonymous behind a keyboard on the internet.

 auticus wrote:

I don't say this lightly; do not take Auticus' posts, predictions, or stat breakdowns as anything more than his personal opinion. Whatever analytical methods he uses end up being wrong so often they are of no practical use, and his personal perspective is skewed to say the least.

While everything anyone says is their own personal opinion, you better have some backup of all the things that I am "frequently wrong about" other than your own skewed and biased opinion or you may soon find out about slander and how you can be held accountable for it.

Even when you think you are anonymous behind a keyboard on the internet.

"Pit of shades is the best Daughters of Khaine spell because it does mortal wounds!"

 auticus wrote:

I don't say this lightly; do not take Auticus' posts, predictions, or stat breakdowns as anything more than his personal opinion. Whatever analytical methods he uses end up being wrong so often they are of no practical use, and his personal perspective is skewed to say the least.

While everything anyone says is their own personal opinion, you better have some backup of all the things that I am "frequently wrong about" other than your own skewed and biased opinion or you may soon find out about slander and how you can be held accountable for it.

Even when you think you are anonymous behind a keyboard on the internet.

Lol. Now this is prime. I mean, the person you are quoting is on my block list for a reason, but this statement is laughably internet tough guy strong. Also they are right. Your wounded pride that PB didn't feel you deserved as much praise and credit as you thought you did when the game was brand new is really old. Probably should step away or chill out.

chaos0xomega wrote:
My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

This sort of thing is more or less a problem caused by modern technology - there was a time when rulesets with unclear instruction couldn't be patched in realtime by the authors (or their designated henchmen) via online channels or issued out to the community via an online FAQ, etc. In those days, short of writing a letter to the author (which was encouraged by rulesets which featured mailing addresses for the authors) to get clarification, it was up to your local playgroup to make up an agreed upon houserule. Ultimately the discord clarifications by vanguards or whatever is just an overglorified houserule and not one that is universally recognized (my local group is hardly the only one out there that has no discord presence) - feel free to ignore them and fix the problems you encounter locally.

That just makes it the opposite problem. Instead:
A: Okay, I do this for my turn.
B: Actually, that came up on Discord and the PB staff clarified it actually works this way.
A: uh, that's directly contradictory to the rules text?
B: I know, but the green name said it
A: Is it in an FAQ document?
B: No, but the green name said it.
A: Ooookay. I... will go play ASOIAF.

It is:
A: I asked on Discord the other day and PB staff told me it works like this.
B: Ah, we don't do that here.
A: do what?
B: We play by RAW/have our own house rules.
A: So... you don't play Conquest as the devs intend it?
B: No.
A: Okay... I think I'll just go play ASOIAF.

It works for a small play group but is painful for a group trying to grow.

edit: to be clear, when it's just me and my 2 buds playing we play the way we like to play. That doesn't work when we play "public games".

caladancid wrote:

 auticus wrote:

I don't say this lightly; do not take Auticus' posts, predictions, or stat breakdowns as anything more than his personal opinion. Whatever analytical methods he uses end up being wrong so often they are of no practical use, and his personal perspective is skewed to say the least.

While everything anyone says is their own personal opinion, you better have some backup of all the things that I am "frequently wrong about" other than your own skewed and biased opinion or you may soon find out about slander and how you can be held accountable for it.

Even when you think you are anonymous behind a keyboard on the internet.

Lol. Now this is prime. I mean, the person you are quoting is on my block list for a reason, but this statement is laughably internet tough guy strong. Also they are right. Your wounded pride that PB didn't feel you deserved as much praise and credit as you thought you did when the game was brand new is really old. Probably should step away or chill out.

I am not sure where you are coming from about my wounded pride about me not deserving praise and credit. I certainly have never voiced any of that or where any of this is coming from since none of that was even being talked about. I was a paid affiliate and at the top of the vanguard tier structure; if I have any problems with PB - not being given credit or whatever was certainly not one of them.

Evidence? Well let's compare something from earlier in this very thread to those tourney lists:

 auticus wrote:
This isn't about cavalry bonusees overperforming.

Its an added bonus. it doesn't have to be overperforming. Its still greater than zero impact, while infantry gets zero impact from it.

As an item greater than zero, it becomes more desirable. From a powergamer's perspective, thats all it takes to spam. An item with 0 in the column vs an item with a value > 0 in the column will be on paper more attractive depending on the point cost associated.

Cavalry and brutes in addition to the impact hit bonus have the added speed bonus to get to objectives fast, which is the prime game for almost all of the scenarios.

Cavalry brutes in addition to those two factors do not degrade their attacks like infantry does.

There are many factors that go into why cavalry and brutes outperform infantry and make them more desirable from a powergamer's perspective.

Once the tournament meta starts churning, this is how games become all about that one thing in the long run.

Or further back, when characters were going to be dominating the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plCVLomM3t8&t=1011s at 16:30 is when he begins speaking on the topic). Or when PB asked Auticus not to focus on the negative when representing the game as a Vanguard and he decried that as them asking him to lie when they were just asking him, as someone who signed up to promote the game, to promote the game. I recall one of my first red flags was when he did a video reviewing the Fire Forged stats when the models first came out, and suggested they were a bit underpowered; the unit was subsequently nerfed, in essence going from a 2+ save to a 3+, because of how overpowered it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

caladancid wrote:
I mean, the person you are quoting is on my block list for a reason

For the record, I can think of several bad reasons for this to be the case but also quite a lot of good ones. I'm hardly proud of my own post history and am sorry you had a bad experience.

Yes. Those are my opinions.

You've just pointed out water is wet and the sky is blue.

Those are in fact my opinions. Thats the whole point of doing content videos - to post opinions. Shocking - sometimes opinions are wrong. If you actually watched my videos other than cherry picking what you want to get your rocks off you'll find probably a half dozen instances of me talking about those stats and how they aren't the whole story. The whole reason I did that series was because individuals such as yourself cherry pick the things you want to - and I wanted to make it crystal clear about the whole tangible vs intangible thing and how I double underlined that in the presentation itself about how those cannot be the whole story.

Also your take on what happened in those private conversations between myself and PB and the conversation you are trying to parade around as if you know what happened and are privy to that conversation are laughable at best and are a gross distortion of the communication that occurred - of which you have zero content and zero inkling and are just running your little mouth like you like to do.

Keep my name out of your mouth / keyboard. There is zero reason why you should have been talking about me at this point in this thread other than to troll.

Good lord, the entire news & rumours section feels full of fights today. Every thread i've opened so far had an ongoing argument.

 cole1114 wrote:
Good lord, the entire news & rumours section feels full of fights today. Every thread i've opened so far had an ongoing argument.

That's true for any given day.

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

This sort of thing is more or less a problem caused by modern technology - there was a time when rulesets with unclear instruction couldn't be patched in realtime by the authors (or their designated henchmen) via online channels or issued out to the community via an online FAQ, etc. In those days, short of writing a letter to the author (which was encouraged by rulesets which featured mailing addresses for the authors) to get clarification, it was up to your local playgroup to make up an agreed upon houserule. Ultimately the discord clarifications by vanguards or whatever is just an overglorified houserule and not one that is universally recognized (my local group is hardly the only one out there that has no discord presence) - feel free to ignore them and fix the problems you encounter locally.

That just makes it the opposite problem. Instead:
A: Okay, I do this for my turn.
B: Actually, that came up on Discord and the PB staff clarified it actually works this way.
A: uh, that's directly contradictory to the rules text?
B: I know, but the green name said it
A: Is it in an FAQ document?
B: No, but the green name said it.
A: Ooookay. I... will go play ASOIAF.

It is:
A: I asked on Discord the other day and PB staff told me it works like this.
B: Ah, we don't do that here.
A: do what?
B: We play by RAW/have our own house rules.
A: So... you don't play Conquest as the devs intend it?
B: No.
A: Okay... I think I'll just go play ASOIAF.

It works for a small play group but is painful for a group trying to grow.

edit: to be clear, when it's just me and my 2 buds playing we play the way we like to play. That doesn't work when we play "public games".

Yeah, no. The only "outsiders" we've had show up to play with our group are similarly not on discord and mostly had interpreted the rules uncertainties the same way we did (and where they didn't we ended up splitting the difference and agreeing with their view on a bunch and they ended up agreeing with us on a bunch). Otherwise everyone else here is "local" - they either started as part of the group that decided to play Conquest, or they joined us afterwards as a result of us pushing the game. Not everyone hooks in directly to social media channels on these games, in fact I would say it seems that most do not.

Also "green name on discord said it" != "as the devs intended it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:


Keep my name out of your mouth / keyboard. There is zero reason why you should have been talking about me at this point in this thread other than to troll.

Will Smith!!?? I figured you might be into the hobby after seeing White Dwarf in Enemy of the State, but I didn't think you were this deep in.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

This sort of thing is more or less a problem caused by modern technology - there was a time when rulesets with unclear instruction couldn't be patched in realtime by the authors (or their designated henchmen) via online channels or issued out to the community via an online FAQ, etc. In those days, short of writing a letter to the author (which was encouraged by rulesets which featured mailing addresses for the authors) to get clarification, it was up to your local playgroup to make up an agreed upon houserule. Ultimately the discord clarifications by vanguards or whatever is just an overglorified houserule and not one that is universally recognized (my local group is hardly the only one out there that has no discord presence) - feel free to ignore them and fix the problems you encounter locally.

That just makes it the opposite problem. Instead:
A: Okay, I do this for my turn.
B: Actually, that came up on Discord and the PB staff clarified it actually works this way.
A: uh, that's directly contradictory to the rules text?
B: I know, but the green name said it
A: Is it in an FAQ document?
B: No, but the green name said it.
A: Ooookay. I... will go play ASOIAF.

It is:
A: I asked on Discord the other day and PB staff told me it works like this.
B: Ah, we don't do that here.
A: do what?
B: We play by RAW/have our own house rules.
A: So... you don't play Conquest as the devs intend it?
B: No.
A: Okay... I think I'll just go play ASOIAF.

It works for a small play group but is painful for a group trying to grow.

edit: to be clear, when it's just me and my 2 buds playing we play the way we like to play. That doesn't work when we play "public games".

Yeah, no. The only "outsiders" we've had show up to play with our group are similarly not on discord and mostly had interpreted the rules uncertainties the same way we did (and where they didn't we ended up splitting the difference and agreeing with their view on a bunch and they ended up agreeing with us on a bunch). Otherwise everyone else here is "local" - they either started as part of the group that decided to play Conquest, or they joined us afterwards as a result of us pushing the game. Not everyone hooks in directly to social media channels on these games, in fact I would say it seems that most do not.

Also "green name on discord said it" != "as the devs intended it".

That's great for you, but does not match my lived experience.

Also,

3) If the question persists then please know that answers that come from members of the
Para Bellum team @Retail Relationship Team @Conquest Relationship Manager @Community Manager
always supercede and are considered official and final until later revision by the team.

(Retail Relationship Team is a green name)
There official rules are literally that a green name's word is law until it hits a PDF. It's emphasized multiple times that green names *are* PB staff, and PB are the devs. Therefore, if a green name makes a ruling, as part of the dev team, that is as the devs intend it.

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
My small nascent local group thankfully hasn't really encountered the issues you guys speak of. None of us are on the discord (and so haven't encountered the ruling you guys are referring to) - if we can't find clarification in official supporting documentation we mutually agree to a solution that feels right, with the acknowledgement that its a problem with the game itself that will hopefully be addressed by the authors at a future date.

This sort of thing is more or less a problem caused by modern technology - there was a time when rulesets with unclear instruction couldn't be patched in realtime by the authors (or their designated henchmen) via online channels or issued out to the community via an online FAQ, etc. In those days, short of writing a letter to the author (which was encouraged by rulesets which featured mailing addresses for the authors) to get clarification, it was up to your local playgroup to make up an agreed upon houserule. Ultimately the discord clarifications by vanguards or whatever is just an overglorified houserule and not one that is universally recognized (my local group is hardly the only one out there that has no discord presence) - feel free to ignore them and fix the problems you encounter locally.

That just makes it the opposite problem. Instead:
A: Okay, I do this for my turn.
B: Actually, that came up on Discord and the PB staff clarified it actually works this way.
A: uh, that's directly contradictory to the rules text?
B: I know, but the green name said it
A: Is it in an FAQ document?
B: No, but the green name said it.
A: Ooookay. I... will go play ASOIAF.

It is:
A: I asked on Discord the other day and PB staff told me it works like this.
B: Ah, we don't do that here.
A: do what?
B: We play by RAW/have our own house rules.
A: So... you don't play Conquest as the devs intend it?
B: No.
A: Okay... I think I'll just go play ASOIAF.

It works for a small play group but is painful for a group trying to grow.

edit: to be clear, when it's just me and my 2 buds playing we play the way we like to play. That doesn't work when we play "public games".

Yeah, no. The only "outsiders" we've had show up to play with our group are similarly not on discord and mostly had interpreted the rules uncertainties the same way we did (and where they didn't we ended up splitting the difference and agreeing with their view on a bunch and they ended up agreeing with us on a bunch). Otherwise everyone else here is "local" - they either started as part of the group that decided to play Conquest, or they joined us afterwards as a result of us pushing the game. Not everyone hooks in directly to social media channels on these games, in fact I would say it seems that most do not.

Also "green name on discord said it" != "as the devs intended it".

That's great for you, but does not match my lived experience.

Thankfully the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinion on the matter has no impact on how my local group -which, like many, is disconnected from discord and the broader community - plays. Amazing how that works, no?

Also,

3) If the question persists then please know that answers that come from members of the
Para Bellum team @Retail Relationship Team @Conquest Relationship Manager @Community Manager
always supercede and are considered official and final until later revision by the team.

(Retail Relationship Team is a green name)
There official rules are literally that a green name's word is law until it hits a PDF. It's emphasized multiple times that green names *are* PB staff, and PB are the devs. Therefore, if a green name makes a ruling, as part of the dev team, that is as the devs intend it.

Is that in a rulebook? No? Then none of the people in the group have ever seen it and it effectively does not exist. Thanks for playing.

Even if it was, expecting people to join a discord and look up rulings/changes that may or may not exist is unreasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
Yes. Those are my opinions.

You've just pointed out water is wet and the sky is blue.

Those are in fact my opinions. Thats the whole point of doing content videos - to post opinions. Shocking - sometimes opinions are wrong. If you actually watched my videos other than cherry picking what you want to get your rocks off you'll find probably a half dozen instances of me talking about those stats and how they aren't the whole story. The whole reason I did that series was because individuals such as yourself cherry pick the things you want to - and I wanted to make it crystal clear about the whole tangible vs intangible thing and how I double underlined that in the presentation itself about how those cannot be the whole story.

Also your take on what happened in those private conversations between myself and PB and the conversation you are trying to parade around as if you know what happened and are privy to that conversation are laughable at best and are a gross distortion of the communication that occurred - of which you have zero content and zero inkling and are just running your little mouth like you like to do.

Keep my name out of your mouth / keyboard. There is zero reason why you should have been talking about me at this point in this thread other than to troll.

I don't know what was said in private; I'm referencing things you put in videos. At any rate, obviously we are going to disagree and if you feel it is trolling then report it and the mods can sort it out. I can certainly say I have been more polite about it. And besides, it is just my opinion.

You gave advice. I told you why it wouldn't work for me. Why are you replying like this?