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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

What do you expect when talking about an absolutely boring winning list.
I like the Primaris list floating around much better.

 daedalus wrote:

Ordana wrote:

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Fine. But we can't pretend that it doesn't have some significant drawbacks:

- Increases max number of conscripts lost per round by 33%.
- Decreases the number of conscripts available for the "magic tail".
- Creed can't order all the conscripts anymore.
- Adds an additional squad to have to cover with only two commissars.

Also, it's going to be 36 points over if FW plasma ever gets a FAQ.

It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MadMaverick76 wrote:

Kdash wrote:


Can’t give the exactly details but it was –

Primaris Captain + Primarch Librarian
3 (I think) units of 5 Intercessors
1 unit of 5 bolter Aggressors
2 Contemptor Dreads (1 CC weapon)
1 Contemptor Mortis Dread
1 Mortis Dread
1 Stormtalon with Lascannons.
1 unit of Hellblasters (at least)

Can’t remember anything else off the top of my head for now, but I can always check later.

I really appreciate it. I am happy to see the Primaris marines did decent. Been really enjoying playing them lately, hoping this trend continues.

This isn't really a primaris list. It's not even a particularly good list.
Agressors are really bad. Contemptor dreads are proabably the worst space marine armor unit. Stormtalon is also terrible. Kind of wierd he wouldn't bring a relic leviathan...considering how good it is too. These list...they aren't optimized. Like...the winning lists must factor in sportsmanship and painting or something because this is just a bad bad list.

Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

Makes for an enjoyable read though, eh?

Keep an eye for Xenomancers crushing every GT they attend.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

Makes for an enjoyable read though, eh?

Keep an eye for Xenomancers crushing every GT they attend.

It's genuinely a good laugh.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

What do you expect when talking about an absolutely boring winning list.
I like the Primaris list floating around much better.

I think the comment is more about the nature of the discourse than the nature of any list.

@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

Bharring wrote:
1)
If by "illegal loadout", you mean I didn't know CSM had to pay 10 points for a sarge, so ran 140 points of CSM vs 130 points of DA, yeah, my bad. And by 'Didn't use battlefocus' you meant used battlefocus every round, otherwise the DAs got wiped out fast. And by the corrected values meant the Chaos lost handily you meant it would take only 10 full rounds for the DAs to finish off the CSM model-for-model... I really have to question your memory.

Everyone had every right to be butthurt about scatterbikes. That was just wrong.

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

3)
So you say. If I had to choose to trust a random poster without solid logic to base it upon, or people who win GTs, I know who I'm more likely to believe.

As I said, I'd have been more likely to bring some devs over more Tac squads, but I didn't win a GT.

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

1. There was that and giving the less-than-10-dudes two Plasma Guns and a Combi, where they would've had the one plasma gun and Combi max. You had to have multiple people tell you that. Do I need to go find it?

2. I have taken statistics courses and work for a nursing building in the business office section. So I think I know a little about math and doctors, thanks. Also insurance stuff as well but that doesn't apply here.

3. Which "lots of troops"? It clearly can't be Guard or Orks, as their troops function correctly. It can't be Dire Avengers again, because they're getting a significant price cut with the new codex. It can't be Immortals or Warriors, as they're not the issue with Necrons doing poorly. It definitely can't be Kalabites as this is the best they've functioned in years.
What are these lots of troops you're talking about?

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Bharring wrote:
That last comment was intellectually lazy of me; I apologize.

The subject I"m asking him to read up on in *specifically* interplay between logical proofs, logical fallacies, data-based evidence, and the scientific process. He continually states that the data "proves" something, while also "disproving" appeal to authority as a logical fallacy. There are some fallacies in that, and I'm hoping he can read up on what he's talking about.

I haven't followed many tournaments. The title of the thread was 'First Warhammer40 GT'. I (apparently wrongly) inferred that we were just starting to get relevant GT data.

As for 'Tacs are garbage' and 'Most troops do worse than troops' - claims I have supported, but not overwhelmingly - I think that those statements are accurate. If AM have been dominating as you suggest, that suggests Tacs don't perform as well as most AM units. But do most of the other dozen + armies out there also regularly outperform Tac-backed armies? Does the tourny data show kalabites as superior? Fire Warriors? Kroot? Gaunts? I actually haven't seen the data, so don't know.

If you don't follow tournament results, that's your own fault. All this data has been available to you to use for your arguments like it has mine. Difference is I'm using that data and you're not. When I say it's an off list, I mean it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Tactical Marines and Rubric Marines have done this rarely in the past. Why should it challenge anything now?

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

It's not a spoff to piss people off. I have now confirmed through the warhammer world website that the scoring of the event includes painting and sportsmanship to determine ranking. Not even saying that is a bad thing. People in this thread "people on the internet" as you so eloquently put it - have been trying to use the results of this tournament make obviously untrue statements. Things like "tactical marines are good units" and "AM aren't OP". This is just crazy talk. The results of this tournament are hugely skewed by painting skills and having a good attitude and such - This speaks very little of army balance in the end because of that.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Yeah, I'm reflecting that BA are probably screwed in 8th and that tacticals are functional if armed with lascannons and cower in cover to get the free 2+. Tacticals go back to their normal status if you try to play a normal game with them; ie taking objectives against fire, taking more faction-appropriate weapons like melta or flamer, etc. Tacticals will never do enough damage to justify stuffing them in a 75 pt rhino, so what's to be done? What this guy did, and precious little else. I consider myself corrected, internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

I'm a believer on the winning list. With primaris, I'm gonna need to see more until I take them out of garbage tier.

The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.

First of all, summing positive and negative quallities into a net sum and screeching about it from the rooftops is not a winning strategy. It's worthwhile to enumerate changes so that you understand the dynamic of how they're changing, and can perhaps exploit those differences, as opposed to pointing at something and squealing "good" or "bad". The alternative is that is believing that a top tier competitive player took the >25% of his points in the form of the biggest handicap he could (tactical marines) and still won against a bunch of similar people doing similar things, except without the handicap. I could see that belief causing a large amount of discomfort in people though.

Second of all, yes, some units got cheaper. I don't think that affects his list, which would in fact be invalid point-wise if/when Elysian plasma gets the point adjustment that it should.

Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

Fourth, he didn't use scions. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in response to my comment on the list, other than the fact that you're omnidirectionally radiating anger..

1. Oh, the time where we readjusted to Loyalist SM PG/Combi 5-man vs 7-man DA units (same cost)? The Loyalists did better damage, but it became clear that they had drawbacks because (1) Combis were 1-time-use, (2) the s7 profile could kill the user via Gets Hot, and (3) you could possibly lose the PG or Combi before the bolter dudes. Imagine if those drawbacks changed? Or if the PG/Combi 5-man cost the same as 5 DAs?

I made some mistakes. Things got corrected. But some of the revised assumptions were more than a bit off. I factored those corrections in moving forward. We all make mistakes.

2. There are two meanings of Proof, really. The formal one is logical proofs that, barring a flaw in the logic, are 100% true. The informal one is "We've shown enough evidence." Logical fallacies destroy the first meaning, not the second. For example, if 100% of people, who took medicine X died within 5 minutes, saying that medicine X kills people who take it is based on a post hoc fallacy. It's probably true. And with enough data fits the informal definition of "proof". But as a post hoc, it wouldn't be a formal "proof". Stats and logical fallacies have a bit more complex relationship than you might think.

3.

It can be DAs, at least until the new Dex comes out. Not sure if it still will be then. But there are plenty of others.

Some rough ranking:
Conscripts
Necron Warriors
Guardsmen
Ork Boyz?
Tacs
Harlequins
Scouts
Fire Warriors
Guardians
Genestealers
Kalabites?
Neophytes
Immortals
Wracks
Rangers
Wyches
PAGK
Corsairs
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Storm Guardians

Some of those might be a bit out of order. But that's not a lot of troops I'd list as better than Tacs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
That's why I asked for peoples' data. One set, the one that seems to refute me, is mostly 7E data. The other set is mostly 8E data, but backs what I've been saying.

I didn't have the breadth of data that you did going into this thread, so I asked for it. And it turns out that the majority of that data is *not this edition*.

I shot you
No you didn't
Yes I did
Nu'uh
Did to
Did not

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.

First of all, summing positive and negative quallities into a net sum and screeching about it from the rooftops is not a winning strategy. It's worthwhile to enumerate changes so that you understand the dynamic of how they're changing, and can perhaps exploit those differences, as opposed to pointing at something and squealing "good" or "bad". The alternative is that is believing that a top tier competitive player took the >25% of his points in the form of the biggest handicap he could (tactical marines) and still won against a bunch of similar people doing similar things, except without the handicap. I could see that belief causing a large amount of discomfort in people though.

Second of all, yes, some units got cheaper. I don't think that affects his list, which would in fact be invalid point-wise if/when Elysian plasma gets the point adjustment that it should.

Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

Fourth, he didn't use scions. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in response to my comment on the list, other than the fact that you're omnidirectionally radiating anger..

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

 daedalus wrote:
Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

See this type of question is the ones I want people to be asking. How did he win? why? what were the motiviations behind his choices? These are the questions we should be asking, since the answers could be genuinely useful tactical info that could help us further our own lists and tactics.

Instead we just have a bunch of people jumping to their own conclusions with very biased views (not to mention internet "experts" who clearly know more than the guy who actually piloted the list).

Ordana wrote:
The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

I don't know why, but until i see it being reproducible, i still list them as garbage tier.

The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

I actually agree, but 13 pt ablative wounds just seem supet inefficient in the big picture. The point of contention is just how viable tac marine anti-infantry and assaulting is.

Martel732 wrote:

Ordana wrote:
The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

I don't know why, but until i see it being reproducible, i still list them as garbage tier.

It's not even a primaris list. It has some primaris units and HQ's. The theme of the list is dreadnoughts though and it doesn't even have a primaris dreadnought. It has 3 contemptors...which are terrible units (redemptors are still a poor choice but better than contemptors). Supposedly the list went 5-1...

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

"Those people?"

Here's some self reflection. There's a great American philosopher I am fond of, C.S. Pierce. He was a pragmatist, wrote a lot of interesting things about the tenacity of belief, how beliefs are necessary and bring comfort while necessarily causing us to ignore viewpoints that clash with it. People in general hold onto beliefs past the point they are useful, letting go of an idea that leads to action is harder than just ignoring challenges to it.

I always find it odd when someone sees themself belonging to a group of enlightened thinkers who claim this observation about the basic state of human consciousness doesn't apply, that "others" have some fault in their ability to process information about the world around them. It's a very backhanded form of marginalization, classifying people engaged in discussion into an inferior category because the level of conversation cannot be rationalized to meet some abstract standard. And it's very judgmental.

The entire purpose of the dialectic is to discover some truth through conversation. There is no truth to be had on Dakka, everyone has their own framework for how they play the game. Of course it will come into conflict, and no amount of self-reflection is going to lead to resolution. Of course people are going to ignore what other people have to say, much of what gets said is complete garbage to begin with.

Thinking specifically about Slayerfan here. I find reasons to disagree with much of what he has to say, and how he says it. I also feel very grateful for him taking the time to share, because it does get me thinking. I don't need to respond to his points a certain way in order to find value in the conversation.

The list that won the GT is either the worst list ever or utterly brilliant depending on what you think about the game before you look at it. Expecting people to... what, find some new truth in the discussion? agree? exercise joyous civility in their interaction?... is reaching. Saying people discussing the topic are inferior, discourteous, or harming you for not meeting some standard is absolutely cruel.

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

Melissia wrote:The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

I don't have my codex but I remember you can field devastator squads with 1 lascannon or with some abalative wounds with just a larger squad. Which is why I find interesting on his choice of units since it feels like ObSec might have been a genuine consideration for this.

techsoldaten wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

"Those people?"

Here's some self reflection. There's a great American philosopher I am fond of, C.S. Pierce. He was a pragmatist, wrote a lot of interesting things about the tenacity of belief, how beliefs are necessary and bring comfort while necessarily causing us to ignore viewpoints that clash with it. People in general hold onto beliefs past the point they are useful, letting go of an idea that leads to action is harder than just ignoring challenges to it.

I always find it odd when someone sees themself belonging to a group of enlightened thinkers who claim this observation about the basic state of human consciousness doesn't apply, that "others" have some fault in their ability to process information about the world around them. It's a very backhanded form of marginalization, classifying people engaged in discussion into an inferior category because the level of conversation cannot be rationalized to meet some abstract standard. And it's very judgmental.

The entire purpose of the dialectic is to discover some truth through conversation. There is no truth to be had on Dakka, everyone has their own framework for how they play the game. Of course it will come into conflict, and no amount of self-reflection is going to lead to resolution. Of course people are going to ignore what other people have to say, much of what gets said is complete garbage to begin with.

Thinking specifically about Slayerfan here. I find reasons to disagree with much of what he has to say, and how he says it. I also feel very grateful for him taking the time to share, because it does get me thinking. I don't need to respond to his points a certain way in order to find value in the conversation.

The list that won the GT is either the worst list ever or utterly brilliant depending on what you think about the game before you look at it. Expecting people to... what, find some new truth in the discussion? agree? exercise joyous civility in their interaction?... is reaching. Saying people discussing the topic are inferior, discourteous, or harming you for not meeting some standard is absolutely cruel.

To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

Martel732 wrote:
Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

You can always play red ultra marines. I hear their tacticals are good too and win tournaments.

Martel732 wrote:
Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

I mean at least you can hold onto hope. I've already got my codex and my GK suck something awful. I have no hope until 9th with this army.

I honestly hope they release Angron. Angron is me made manifest towards GW right now for the state of GK in 8th. I will happily switch armies to play Angron.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

When you start talking about "those people," you absolutely are claiming other people are inferior to you. When you deny it, you are doing the same thing you accuse other people of.

Unless you are, in fact, superior. Which is why I know he can't be talking about me!