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.

 Strg Alt wrote:
You must have belonged to the crowd that vehemently refused the notion of the Old World´s destruction.

You must be part of the same crowd that said the world would explode when 1999 became 2000.

On the "no more marines" front what do people expect?

9th edition to see no regular marines in the rules?
GW to re-release all Marine models (tacticals, devs, assault etc) but at Primaris Scale and they won't match your old models?
Just sadness that tacticals might not get a new kit in two years because they are no longer the ultimate money spinner and, like the vast majority of the range, they might languish for a decade or two with the same sprues?

My friend and I both started in 2nd edition (although we didn't know each other way back then), and we're digging 8th more than any previous edition.

About the only complaint we have is the terrain and cover rules seem a bit off, but that's mostly just memories of old editions interfering.

I personally just really enjoy the speed and ease of the gameplay.

 Azreal13 wrote:
While you're so convinced that you're correct you're coming across as a little smug and undermining any credibility your perspective may otherwise carry.

You may be right, in fact in the long term I'm sure you are, but to try and make it sound like some sort of imminent threat is almost certainly wrong and decidedly hyperbolic.

If you want to know what is in store for us then you have to have empathy. Just imagine you are one of the top executives at GW. The goal is as always: Make money and get rid of the nasty, badmouthing veterans. These oldtimers have everything and therefore buy less. Sadly, they also know how the cooky crumbles and can foster dissent in the community.

Just take a look at AoS and how they dealt with the players. They ridiculed their factions with stupid rules (riding imaginary horses) and drove them away to 9th Age or other systems. Meanwhile they hyped the beejebus out of the Stormcasts like they do now with the Uber-Marines. Where are the new human models in AoS? They have been replaced by the Stormcasts. Sure there are some illustrations of them but that is irrelevant. What counts are new models for the TT. And I don´t see any.

How people can be so stubborn in their denial of this is just unbelievable. The true SM that we know are even today relegated to the sidelines. How? They are not even allowed to represent their faction of their very own codex which is simply astonishing. What a slap to the face to all those vets. I thought the Uber-Marines are just an addition to the force. But addition is simply marketing speech to fool the customer. You can´t say replace otherwise there will be a backlash from the community. For now true SM and the new guys are seen together on the tabletop. Wait a few years and only the big ones are left. This is called a smooth transition and will hopefully reduce any trouble from collectors.

You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?

I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
8th switches out some problems with 7th for others, adds rules that don't make sense, and is fairly bland and lifeless as a whole. For me, the biggest issues with 8th are that cover is fairly pointless, and the Psychic Phase is worse than the 7e one in terms of scaling. Also, the emphasis on "buff stacking" is far more prevalent, point costs are whackadoo, and the whole thing deels like we're paying to beta test.

Please be my friend.

Since it is pretty much just a matter of opinion as to which edition is "better", I have played 8th and did not like it, at all. I much prefer sticking with 7th. I could go into all the reasons I dislike it, but one mans trash is anothers treasure so...anyhow. It is at least worth a try if you are not enjoying 7th. I am of the opinion of "why change if you enjoy what your doing" because newer does not automatically mean better. (also for the record I too love 2nd edition D&D)

It is a different game. You are using the same pieces...and sometimes the same table tactics.

But like 3rd was a big change off from 2nd. And players said the game got dumber....there were new and cool things that make the game good.

7th to 8th is a big change and players say the game is simpler.....but there are again new and cool things that make the game good.

Try it.....I don't think it will have the same staying power as 2nd or 3rd. but it is time the 3 thru 7 version of the game died and 40K became something else.

I'll say this-I prefer 7th. I play 8th because I play at GW, and so I can't play 7th.

But, 8th isn't bad. Give it a go-you might like it. (Borrow the indexes and rulebook, though-don't drop $50 or whatever on a game you're not sure on.)

I started in 2nd Ed, kept up with the changes and then took a knee for 7th Ed. With 8th Ed I am back in with a vengeance. Now if we could just bring back Overwatch, the old 2nd Ed Psychic powers, reduce the model count and return to individual melee and I'm completely happy!

But seriously, 8th Ed is a good reboot. I'll stay on for the ride.

Cheers

8th is the worst thing to happen to the table top gaming community ever, people are only enjoying it now because it's new and fresh, a few more months and a few more codex's and people will be wanting to go back to the better versions 3-7th.

7th was awesome, it was fun, balanced (I play orks so and I say it was balanced) everything made sense and it didn't have stupid tournament organisers forcing gw to brake their own lore to make as I've seen one person describe it "tournamenthammer 40iq"

8th is a better set of rules playwise than 7th. It is much easier to organize games and teach people. Gameflow is more fluid aswell. I have some problems with 8th, though:
1. They didn't re-write the game from the ground up using newer and better mechanics present in younger games. I can understand that the continuality needs to be there, but I still hoped for something more radical.
2. No free data cards. I've spent a lot of cash on AoS because of the free warscrolls. I guess that GW really want to keep their printing operations running and profitable as a semi-contained product or one intertwined with the main ones (minies) and not just as an optional book for the collector like the battletomes. Shutting down an operating business is stupid and getting it up working from the ground up again is hard should they let their sales die off.
3. The AoS fight phase is better IMO. In 40k if your unit isn't a complete wuss in CC you're trying to get the charge 90% of the time instead of charging when you should depending on your other combats.
4. Tanks interact a little... weirder with infantry than they should IMO. I've seen atleast 1 good example supporting the counter argument though so this isn't that big of a complain...

I guess my only real complain is the first one. The rest can be easily overlooked.

P.S. The new marines are an awesome example of good, clean and tasteful design. How could anyone be angry that they exist??? It is a rhetorical question, don't answer

 sfshilo wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.

There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.

Bro you need to chill out.....

Que?? I'm a fairly chill person, i don't know why you got so triggered by a harmless comment such as this, you need to chill dude.

I work in the IT business , in every company there is always a subset of people that refuse to change because it's comfortable regardless if what replaces it is better. It sounded like the OP was not playing 8th out of his own choice but rather his conservative friends group, was trying to be sympathetic to the OP:s situation but i see now that maybe it's the OP himself who is reluctant to play it.

It's not perfect but it makes 7th look like the homemade boredgame Aunt Gale made in the episode of Bob's Burger's where Louise needs a tooth pulled.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
8th is the worst thing to happen to the table top gaming community ever, people are only enjoying it now because it's new and fresh, a few more months and a few more codex's and people will be wanting to go back to the better versions 3-7th.

7th was awesome, it was fun, balanced (I play orks so and I say it was balanced) everything made sense and it didn't have stupid tournament organisers forcing gw to brake their own lore to make as I've seen one person describe it "tournamenthammer 40iq"

What?!? Balanced?!?

I played games of 5-7th where I didn't even get a turn. In fact, I had one game against Tau where I set up out of sight/in cover. He went first, and I had one model left before my first turn. How is that balanced.

I am not an amazing player, I lose 70% of the time, but 8th is massively more balanced. I can take what I like and lose because I made stupid mistakes.

Just the other day playing against a Nid army which has nearly tabled most other players of our club and I lost by one objective in Big Guns, and only because I made three decisions which were bad.

8th is nowhere near perfect, but by God it is a damn sight better than the fethstorm of 7th and 6th, the loss of customisability from 5th, and well I started in 4th so that will always have a sweet spot.

The verdict?

If you play with close friends using balanced and extremely tailored lists in order to enjoy a fair game (like me and my group do) 7th edition was better or at the same level of this one.

If you play competitive games or casual ones this edition is certainly more entertaining and balanced. You won't lose a single game in turn 1 at least.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Core rules in 7th included the psychic phase which did not function unless both players brought roughly the same number of psykers.

The real issues with 7e Psy were "all or nothing" success thresholds for casting and denial, the system favoring batteries funneling Warp Charge into a few supercasters due to slow WC returns combined with a "single pool", and emphasis on summoning and blessings over the others (since they were harder to deny). With 8th, Psychic Focus means if you want to do something besides spam Smite, you want the best caster possible to ensure you succeed in the first place. For Chaos, Magnus is even more of an autoinclude than in 7th.

SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.

Breng77 wrote:
The core rules in 7th included the mechanics that allowed for tanking characters and battle brother ally synergy.

And 8th means said characters cannot even be targeted until you kill *every* model that is closer. We have Daemons and Magnus lists, and Conscriptspam Imperial Superfriends nowadays, the main difference being Space Wolves are playing second fiddle to Bobby G and Celestine.

Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.

Breng77 wrote:

However, without a huge rewrite they would have had issues with porting the 7th ed codices still functioning in the game.

The fixes could be more gradual. Make Grav Stun on 6s instead of Immobilize, replace Instant death/Eternal Warrior/vehicle explodes/etc with "do an extra d3 wounds/HP" and give vehicles +2 HP and you're clean there. Add a "rule of 3" that says an Invulnerable Save cannot be "improved" to better than 3++, and pare down charts.

Consolidate "special rules." Bombing runs, skyslash attacks, vector strikes, Swooping hawk Intercepts, etc, should have just been a generic "fly-by attack." Change rules so you know what they do just by looking at their name. Things like When(charging): +1 Strength, instead of Furious Charge, and clear out rules that sound similar but do different things. ("Aren't all Crusaders Zealots?" "Technically the Zealots were a *Jewish* uprising..."), and iteratively pare down, rather than creating a messy keyword system where 5 Deathwatch and 1 Terminator take up 12 transport slots!

Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.

They fixed your keyword error with deathwatch in the first FAQ....problem solved.

Breng77 wrote:
SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.

How about creating a system where you don't make powers like "I can super-teleport my army into melee on turn 1?" Hmm? 8th would have the exact same problem 7th had if it kept Invisibility but changed everything else. Being able to only cast a power once means you will want it on your best caster for your most buffable unit. You still have an "all or nothing" system in place.

Way back, when writing on how to fix the 7e Psyker system, I wrote the two things you fix are: Eliminate pooling of powers, and make Manifesting/Denial a "degrees of success" rather than an "all or nothing" mechanic.

Breng77 wrote:
Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.

Deathstarhammer was only notably egregious in 2 cases: Barkbarkstar and Screamers. The game was about MSU rocket-tag, or null betastrikes otherwise.

Breng77 wrote:
Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.

I said gradual, meaning iterative. Refactoring rather than nuking the whole thing. Why try to reinvent the wheel without proper testing?

Ctrl-F/Ctrl-H are things. Just be careful not to screw up like GW interns, who were not appropriately Ta'ught how to use the "Case-sensitive" button.

Crusader could easily be R2D1[Run] or so. I agree that 40k needed a Move Stat, and am glad 8e did bring that back so there was no need for stuff like "Fast vehicle", "Heavy Vehicle", or different variants of "run and charge", or "+3 move/run/charge" and so on so forth.

Immobilization means killing a 3-HP vehicle on boxcars. Grav=stun, and +2 HP = you need five 6s. The Grav Amp on Power Armor Cannons can be removed based on further testing of course. It's just a process of iterative testing, rather than the 8e conundrum where Grav Cannons are now just a sawn-off Heavy Bolter with better AP, and their range is no longer a real issue since cover was gimped and Heavy is just a -1 penalty. Gravdevs around Bobby are functionally not that far removed from the worst 7e Grav could inflict.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.

How about creating a system where you don't make powers like "I can super-teleport my army into melee on turn 1?" Hmm? 8th would have the exact same problem 7th had if it kept Invisibility but changed everything else. Being able to only cast a power once means you will want it on your best caster for your most buffable unit. You still have an "all or nothing" system in place.

Way back, when writing on how to fix the 7e Psyker system, I wrote the two things you fix are: Eliminate pooling of powers, and make Manifesting/Denial a "degrees of success" rather than an "all or nothing" mechanic.

No 8th would not have the same problem as 7th with invis as a power because of the way the system works. Invis in 8th is balanced if you need a 9 or 10+ to manifest the power. It is super great but unrealiable. In 7th you could basically guarantee getting off your important powers. If you remove pooling of power dice in 7th then you re-write the whole system because there are a ton of powers that can never be manifested. Having all or nothing allows for risk reward to be a thing. When things are basically guaranteed (see 6th ed) you get psykers being way too good. Personally I would like powers fleshed out in 8th (as they seem to be with codex releases). Saying "don't make good powers" eliminates the psychic phase, unless everything is like smite. Any buff power has the ability to be broken dependent on what the target of said power is. To fix this in a 7th ed system is difficult.

Breng77 wrote:
Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.

Deathstarhammer was only notably egregious in 2 cases: Barkbarkstar and Screamers. The game was about MSU rocket-tag, or null betastrikes otherwise.

There were others before those 2. Going all the way back to 6th with the same mechanics.

Breng77 wrote:
Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.

I said gradual, meaning iterative. Refactoring rather than nuking the whole thing. Why try to reinvent the wheel without proper testing?

Ctrl-F/Ctrl-H are things. Just be careful not to screw up like GW interns, who were not appropriately Ta'ught how to use the "Case-sensitive" button.

Crusader could easily be R2D1[Run] or so. I agree that 40k needed a Move Stat, and am glad 8e did bring that back so there was no need for stuff like "Fast vehicle", "Heavy Vehicle", or different variants of "run and charge", or "+3 move/run/charge" and so on so forth.

Immobilization means killing a 3-HP vehicle on boxcars. Grav=stun, and +2 HP = you need five 6s. The Grav Amp on Power Armor Cannons can be removed based on further testing of course. It's just a process of iterative testing, rather than the 8e conundrum where Grav Cannons are now just a sawn-off Heavy Bolter with better AP, and their range is no longer a real issue since cover was gimped and Heavy is just a -1 penalty. Gravdevs around Bobby are functionally not that far removed from the worst 7e Grav could inflict.

The problem with that idea is that it needs to be updated far too often to be effective with the GW model. You need a hard reset to have testing work well, otherwise all rules changes need to be tested on all units possessing that rule to see if it breaks.

Grav devs + Bobby are functionally pretty far from the worst 7e grav could inflict, because they still wound based on toughness, So your T6+ model gets wounded on a 5+ instead of a 2+ or 3+.

I created a separate thread to discuss Psyker Powers: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/735175.page

Making powers "only castable once" or "require a high threshold" is not a valid way to balance them, I find. That leads to the same "all or nothing" roulette scenarios that could plague 7e, the classic hypothetical being "Knight Stomping a unit with 2+ Rerollable Invulnerables" or so. ("It only deletes you on a 6...").

GW needs to update their business model then.

8th is by far much more fun than 7th.

Any changes they made which seem weird are to aid in simplifying the bloated rules that were 7th.

And yet people still suggest more rules that they think would improve the game. Completely missing the point that GW is trying to do.

Play 8th. You'll enjoy it more.

I'm loving it. Granted the two main factions I play are Nids and Dark Eldar so a bit o bias in that.

I find it a huge step forward from 7th edition but I did enjoy 7th even with factions that floated at the bottom.

I think the problem with 7th is halfway through it they lost control on how it was played and just started releasing a crap ton of supporting material across multiple books to add more.

8th seems to have this set in mind from the beginning so should be planned out better.

7th is no more tactical, intelligent or complex than 8th. It is needlessly bloated but that doesn't make it more complex.

My advice to you TC is since your group enjoys 7th enough. Just wait on 8th until all the faction books in your group gets released. By then quite a few FAQS should be released and you could see if GW actually follows through with FAQ adjustments and keeping the power creep from going too far (ala 7th).

My group plays plenty of legacy versions of games alongside the newest edition (D&D, Fantasy, 40K, Warmahordes, etc...).

I like it a lot so far, just the balance between the armies alone has allowed me to dust off a lot of things that have been shelved since 6th ed.

Units move fast now, which I think makes for more exciting games.

I'm glad that Friend-star and silly detachments with free stuff are gone.

It's got a really wild swing of luck now because of things like weapons doing D6 damage, but now we have that all important CP to re-roll things with.

So far, I and my son are enjoying 8th more than 6th/7th, but we've only gotten in two games so far. We are using the free rules and indexes only - and plan to remain this way; I've laready sunk more than enough money into previous rulebooks and codexes to keep up in 8th. However, at this point I have no desire to look back at 7th, though for now I will be keeping those old codexes around (primarily for the pre- 8th story and background they provide).

 Azreal13 wrote:
You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?

I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.

Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.

Truly, Games Workshop must be a powerful company indeed if they are able to prevent individuals en masse from playing with their plastic army men.

I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.

8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k 40k.
I do like the return of damage stats, though. I just wish they could have found a way to combine damage (as in causing multiple wounds against monsters) with something like the old vehicle armor rules.

Over all, I still kinda miss 4th/5th editions.

 Melissia wrote:
No, it just reinforces the idea that "You have all these great marines, why not have some Primaris reinforcements, too?"
The idea that they're replacing regular marines is not pushed by GW. It's pushed by fearmongering paranoiacs.

From a business viewpoint I could see them being a replacement.
GW's biggest competition is it's own product (resale of old miniatures).

A small case and point was the Grey Knight terminators being fairly large (metal then) and then making the bigger plastic terminators.
I could still field my old ones but they look pretty strange now (never mind the ORIGINAL obliterators that were the standard 28mm size).
So, getting a new line of bigger marines will "force" converting over to the new models and eventually it will reach a saturation point where the old models are obsolete and no rage quitting required.

I admit I do have some concern, most of my marines are still on the 1" bases not the newer and bigger ones.

As to making fun about the Y2K stuff going on, yes there was no big crash but myself along with many others had to get software updated and replace equipment that could not store records sequentially very well due to the change.
Most database and forecast software already had the fix in them since they had to calculate years in advance of 2000.

It is all a matter of preparation and not being surprised.
I will be buying Primarus marines not because I think they are so much more awesome than what I have now, but that I would like to have an army that is "valid" just in case GW pulls the plug.

I think I would die of shock if they make new models for AM/IG grunts or... sisters of battle (that is coming right??).

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?

I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.

Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.

What makes you think a) you have any say in how I choose to express myself and b) I chose that exact terminology for any reason other than because it precisely encapsulates what I wished to say?

But then, if all you've got to come back at me with is to try and criticize my language choice, I'd say I'll happily take that as you've nothing of any substance to rebut my argument and move on.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]