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.

 Jancoran wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you're a good tactician. Hooray. Unfortunately, we can't measure who's the better player by bragging with quotation marks on the internet, and forum rules ban the comparison of genital size.

Your use of the word 'Anecdotal' confuses me, though. First you bring it up as though to say my argument is invalid for pointing out the limited scope of yours. (Just because you know how someone is arguing doesn't make them wrong, by the way.) But your second and third uses, albiet sarcastic (Or in quotes, at any rate), impliea that you are saying that an anecdote refers to the power of your list... Or... something? I'm not entirely sure of how you're attempting to use the word, though I'm certain it's incorrect. Mind shedding some light on your intended meaning? And why you chose to use the word 'Anecdote' other than the fact that I had used it when refuting your argument?
.

I used it correctly. Read it again.

Refuting my argument requires something more than saying "Anecdotal" and then dropping the mic, walking away.

So. Heres the skinny. The thread is about whether Space Wolves are okay in 7th. I say they are. i say so because that question is an opinion question. I explained my opinion by pointing out that someone without any experience with PLAYING Space Wolves can pick them up, play them and win, not just against one person but against multiple people in a tournament. So it isn't JUST an opinion that they are in fact fine in 7th. It's also proven experience.


If you think you can beat me, beat me 3 out of five, prove it. But until you DO, I suppose your boast that your armies could beat me despite my "anecdotal" evidence is as absurd as using the word in the first place. If I beat your armies into the ground are you going to claim its because YOU'RE a bad General? Oh I doubt that you will. Will you blame the dice? Not if you're worth your salt you wont. So at the end of the day, what more proof do you need for an OPINION than victory? None. Victory REQUIRES no explanation. Failure allows none. It's that simple.

You used the word in two separate ways, neither of which were correct. First you referred to it as though it meant a form of argument, like a straw-man or an appeal to probability. Then, you used it to refer... Sarcastically? You still haven't clarified on what your later uses of the word meant.
I also did not 'Drop the mic and walk away'. I said that your anecdotes were not proof, after a full post explaining problems with your army and Space Wolves in general.

When you ask about me beating you 3 out of 5, I once again direct you to my comment about measuring genital size. I can show you statistics and math and tactics all day, but we can never play against each other and you know that very well, so at that point you're just hiding behind a screen. Then, you insult my tactics, insinuate that I'm bad at the game, and furthermore go on to make allegations that I would be a sore loser. (And I would indeed blame the dice if I got a hundred 1s out of a hundred dice when trying to pass 2+ armor saves on turn 1.) If you beat me with that horrible list (3 out of 5, if you want) and the dice were not cursed so that only ones could be rolled, I'd shake your hand and declare you the best 40k player I've ever met by a country mile, since I don't see how that is even possible.

Victory REQUIRES no explanation. Failure allows none.

I'm sorry, what? If you can't explain how you won, then you're clearly either winning through blind luck or poor enemies. If you can explain how you lost, then you will be unlikely to make the same mistakes again.

So if someone wants to ask for opinions on the viability of Space Wolves, here's my answer: they're just fine. Keep playing them.

If that's your answer, okay. We're in a public forum, though, where we discuss, debate, and argue. If you can't support your opinion without name-calling and unverifiable personal stories which lack details, then your answer doesn't have much weight. Not to mention, he asked where we thought the Space Wolves stood. If your statement is that they can still be used in a 40k game, that's not an opinion, that's a statement of the rules. If you're saying that they're still competitive and powerful, you have to back that up with a reason.

Don't know if anyone listens to 40k radio. New podcast loaded today. They made mention several times Blood Angels are NOT next. Rick also hinted SW are next. They have been right 100% going back to the Space Marine codex.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you're a good tactician. Hooray. Unfortunately, we can't measure who's the better player by bragging with quotation marks on the internet, and forum rules ban the comparison of genital size.

Your use of the word 'Anecdotal' confuses me, though. First you bring it up as though to say my argument is invalid for pointing out the limited scope of yours. (Just because you know how someone is arguing doesn't make them wrong, by the way.) But your second and third uses, albiet sarcastic (Or in quotes, at any rate), impliea that you are saying that an anecdote refers to the power of your list... Or... something? I'm not entirely sure of how you're attempting to use the word, though I'm certain it's incorrect. Mind shedding some light on your intended meaning? And why you chose to use the word 'Anecdote' other than the fact that I had used it when refuting your argument?
.

I used it correctly. Read it again.

Refuting my argument requires something more than saying "Anecdotal" and then dropping the mic, walking away.

So. Heres the skinny. The thread is about whether Space Wolves are okay in 7th. I say they are. i say so because that question is an opinion question. I explained my opinion by pointing out that someone without any experience with PLAYING Space Wolves can pick them up, play them and win, not just against one person but against multiple people in a tournament. So it isn't JUST an opinion that they are in fact fine in 7th. It's also proven experience.


If you think you can beat me, beat me 3 out of five, prove it. But until you DO, I suppose your boast that your armies could beat me despite my "anecdotal" evidence is as absurd as using the word in the first place. If I beat your armies into the ground are you going to claim its because YOU'RE a bad General? Oh I doubt that you will. Will you blame the dice? Not if you're worth your salt you wont. So at the end of the day, what more proof do you need for an OPINION than victory? None. Victory REQUIRES no explanation. Failure allows none. It's that simple.

You used the word in two separate ways, neither of which were correct. First you referred to it as though it meant a form of argument, like a straw-man or an appeal to probability. Then, you used it to refer... Sarcastically? You still haven't clarified on what your later uses of the word meant.
I also did not 'Drop the mic and walk away'. I said that your anecdotes were not proof, after a full post explaining problems with your army and Space Wolves in general.

When you ask about me beating you 3 out of 5, I once again direct you to my comment about measuring genital size. I can show you statistics and math and tactics all day, but we can never play against each other and you know that very well, so at that point you're just hiding behind a screen. Then, you insult my tactics, insinuate that I'm bad at the game, and furthermore go on to make allegations that I would be a sore loser. (And I would indeed blame the dice if I got a hundred 1s out of a hundred dice when trying to pass 2+ armor saves on turn 1.) If you beat me with that horrible list (3 out of 5, if you want) and the dice were not cursed so that only ones could be rolled, I'd shake your hand and declare you the best 40k player I've ever met by a country mile, since I don't see how that is even possible.

Victory REQUIRES no explanation. Failure allows none.

I'm sorry, what? If you can't explain how you won, then you're clearly either winning through blind luck or poor enemies. If you can explain how you lost, then you will be unlikely to make the same mistakes again.

So if someone wants to ask for opinions on the viability of Space Wolves, here's my answer: they're just fine. Keep playing them.

If that's your answer, okay. We're in a public forum, though, where we discuss, debate, and argue. If you can't support your opinion without name-calling and unverifiable personal stories which lack details, then your answer doesn't have much weight. Not to mention, he asked where we thought the Space Wolves stood. If your statement is that they can still be used in a 40k game, that's not an opinion, that's a statement of the rules. If you're saying that they're still competitive and powerful, you have to back that up with a reason.

who called who a name? are you on the same forum I am?

Theres no need to prove this. because as I said: if youre good, youll win. if youre bad: expect to struggle. but the codex itself is fine.

 lobbywatson wrote:
Don't know if anyone listens to 40k radio. New podcast loaded today. They made mention several times Blood Angels are NOT next. Rick also hinted SW are next. They have been right 100% going back to the Space Marine codex.

Of course they are next. Harry or Hastings (or both?) already said so last year. The only opposing rumor we ever had was just some BOLS drivel about Blood Angels accompanied by more drivel about a BA/Ork starter. I have a nice bridge to sell to anyone who ever believed those

 Pouncey wrote:
Put on some Sabaton songs

If you do nothing else, do this.

As for the mathhammer/terrible player thing: there's not a lot of need for offering tactics and list-building tips if your advice boils down to "take what you want to". Mathhammer is a smart theoretical exercise as well because it breaks down the math of a unit's stats, showing you how it should be expected to perform on average - it is not a be-all-end-all.

I'm trying to think of a tournament competitive space wolves list.

Pod wolves?
Loganwing with Inquisition?

Any ideas?