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.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

In other words, because Eradicators are very powerful, and SWS are not.

In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

Breton wrote:
Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

The personal attack is still valid, considering your history on this board. Yes, you're misinterpreting it; running multiples of the same defensive statline can increase your army's durability *or* decrease it, depending on the statline and the meta. Since everything kills GEQs effectively, you're decreasing your army's durability by running lots of them. Since you need specialized tools to take on a Gravis statline cost-effectively, running lots of them *increases* your army's durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

I don't have to lie about gak. It's very easy to make arguments against your points, because your points don't reflect reality.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

The personal attack is still valid, considering your history on this board. Yes, you're misinterpreting it; running multiples of the same defensive statline can increase your army's durability *or* decrease it, depending on the statline and the meta. Since everything kills GEQs effectively, you're decreasing your army's durability by running lots of them. Since you need specialized tools to take on a Gravis statline cost-effectively, running lots of them *increases* your army's durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

I don't have to lie about gak. It's very easy to make arguments against your points, because your points don't reflect reality.

Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Breton wrote:
Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Nope! It was actually more truthful than your statement, because it's a fact that you're dancing around and trying to avoid saying. You're lying by omission, I'm telling the truth. If SWS squads aren't worth running at all, and Eradicators are worth running multiples of, than either top tournament players are idiots, or Eradicators are powerful and SWS aren't.

Breton wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

You don't, but in a discussion of balance, people who aren't marine focused instead of balance focused probably would have noticed a limitation on marine response wouldn't necessarily be a limitation on Nid or Ork response.

Thanks for another opportunity.

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Nope! It was actually more truthful than your statement, because it's a fact that you're dancing around and trying to avoid saying. You're lying by omission, I'm telling the truth. If SWS squads aren't worth running at all, and Eradicators are worth running multiples of, than either top tournament players are idiots, or Eradicators are powerful and SWS aren't.

If a unit that tables your opponent on Turn 2 isn't worth taking because you took one that tables your opponent on Turn 1, units that automatically table your opponent on Turn 2 aren't powerful! Look, you can't be honest. You're just trying to antagonize me by lying about what I said, but you're not. You're just boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

Breton wrote:
If a unit that tables your opponent on Turn 2 isn't worth taking because you took one that tables your opponent on Turn 1, units that automatically table your opponent on Turn 2 aren't powerful!

Compared to the one that tables turn 1, no it isn't. All balance is relative, which is something you are apparently incapable of understanding.

Breton wrote:
Look, you can't be honest. You're just trying to antagonize me by lying about what I said, but you're not. You're just boring.

The truth is boring sometimes. But I'm still right, no matter how much you dance around things. Any claim you make about Eradicators is going to be easily falsifiable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points.

What's their expected wounds inflicted/point vs. a T4 3+ save statline? (the most common defensive statline in the game.)

Hecaton wrote:


The truth is boring sometimes.

How would you know? You're about to lie (again) about my point regarding Nids shooting Guard by asking about the Marine stat-line?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points.

What's their expected wounds inflicted/point vs. a T4 3+ save statline? (the most common defensive statline in the game.)

First off, I fumble fingered on the keypad it's 3 per 9 points. And these T3 Guard I was talking about as the target pool don't have a T4 3+. But we already covered your dishonesty on this point.

But I will say I was wrong, you bringing a point about Nids vs Guard back to the Marine stat line totally doesn't go back to my point that its about nerfing Marines not balance. Totaly.

Breton wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

... I did literally nothing but ask you a question in that post? It’s objectively impossible for that to be a lie. It’s a question. If you think the answer is obvious That’s easily proven by... just answering the question. Which you didn’t do. What are you talking about?

YOU made a claim and I’m asking you to please explain yourself.

What competitive Tyranid list is outshooting Space Marines? Also an additional question since you made a additional claim in this response, what unit gets 3 shots per every 5 pts?

Seriously answer both those questions. Show me this unit and show me this competitive Tyranid list that outshoots Spce Marines vs Guardsmen, since you’ve made this claim and acted like everyone else were imbeciles for not mentioning it. Don’t handwave it, don’t be vague, don’t respond with further misdirection, don’t continue the gish gallop by making further accusations towards posters - just answer. The. Question. Or this is the irrefutable example of you once again, arguing in completely bad faith.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

... I did literally nothing but ask you a question in that post?

That dishonestly and inaccurately re/mis-stated my claim.

It’s objectively impossible for that to be a lie. It’s a question. If you think the answer is obvious That’s easily proven by... just answering the question. Which you didn’t do. What are you talking about?

YOU made a claim and I’m asking you to please explain yourself.

I made a claim, and you're asking me to explain the claim I didn't make.

strawman (noun)
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

What competitive Tyranid list is outshooting Space Marines? Also an additional question since you made a additional claim in this response, what unit gets 3 shots per every 5 pts?

Already answered: First off, I fumble fingered on the keypad it's 3 per 9 points.

Seriously answer both those questions. Show me this unit and show me this competitive Tyranid list that outshoots Spce Marines vs Guardsmen, since you’ve made this claim and acted like everyone else were imbeciles for not mentioning it. Don’t handwave it, don’t be vague, don’t respond with further misdirection, don’t continue the gish gallop by making further accusations towards posters - just answer. The. Question. Or this is the irrefutable example of you once again, arguing in completely bad faith.

Ugh, we're done here