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.

You submitted that the concept of transhuman dread could have some bearing on whether one Marine could defeat 10,000 Guardsmen.

The best example of transhuman dread you could provide showed a Marine momentarily transfixing one individual. Then that Marine was killed by the formerly transfixed.

Transfixed the squad, thank you. Guess you glossed over/chose to ignore where I explain the impact, and how it’s part of the overall situation, not the deciding factor, yeah?

Can you at least stick to disagreeing with things I’ve said, not things you need me to have said to construct your bogus counter arguments around, yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Faster reactions used to be represented by Initiative. A Marine was I4, a Guard was I3.
But, you know what they're slower than? A laser. Like that fired from a lasgun.

Grotsnik, what do you think the odds of a Marine's success is? Give us a percent, or at least a range of percents.

Well that’s asking for the impossible, as I’m not a statistician, nor have I ever claimed to be. There are also so many variables. The environment, the ambient light, the Chapter, the type of Marine, the Regiment, the Regiment’s Homeworld, whether it’s a newly founded or veteran Regiment and so on and so forth.

So I’ll stick to my “low, like, really really low, but never zero” chance of success.

See, that's a cop out. I'm not asking for precision-again, if you want to put a range where on the high end everything is favorable to the Marine but on the low end the opposite is true, that's fine.

But give SOMETHING. Is it ten percent? one percent? a tenth of a percent?

 JNAProductions wrote:
See, that's a cop out. I'm not asking for precision-again, if you want to put a range where on the high end everything is favorable to the Marine but on the low end the opposite is true, that's fine.

But give SOMETHING. Is it ten percent? one percent? a tenth of a percent?

He won't, because doing so means he can't motte-and-bailey all his idiotic claims anymore.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Transfixed the squad, thank you. Guess you glossed over/chose to ignore where I explain the impact, and how it’s part of the overall situation, not the deciding factor, yeah?

Yup, an effect indistinguishable from any number of other contingencies that could arise from warfare: an explosion, a tank, a Tyranid...

A split-second moment of indecision effortlessly overcome by training.

ie. largely irrelevant as a unique consideration beyond the normal psychology of warfare

I feel like this thread is like trying to convince an avid lottery ticket buyer how statistically impossible it is for them to win no matter how much they buy to get the $6 million dollar jackpot and despite the very clear statistics presented towards them he just keeps going "Well, there were several winners in the past, so that means I MUST have a chance!". I think the concept of statistics is so hard for him to conceptualize that it's why he's hand-waving the complete absurdity of 1 marine legitimately being a comparable or greater threat than 10,000 guardsmen.

I feel like this thread has turned into "let's lob personal insults at people we disagree with"...but then again, I suppose that is dakka for you...

Hecaton wrote:He won't, because doing so means he can't motte-and-bailey all his idiotic claims anymore.

Again, ironic that you complain about this. I recall you seemed awfully fond of doing the same in previous discussions.

Glass houses, buddy.

This thread has more than run its course, at this point. Time to move on.