Curious Observation on: '40k questionaire' Thread

[Lord Azaghul]

So I noticed alot of people are ranking CSM relatively high. Im my local area I've personally come to think of CSM as a sort of joke, they seem to have a relatively higher price (when compared to SM), and die like flies (well to guard large blasts anyway).

So clearly the people in my area aren't using them to the extent of others!

Is it just the dual lash option? I find SM sternguard so much greater of a threat (especially with drop pods hanging around)

I also see tau are rather low, we've got a guy here who uses them masterfully, espeically for popping armour (hammerheads and broadsides), and mowing down infantry. Again, this must be a local thing, because other tau players seem to complain about how much the army sucks (they don't go into detail) - but they do appear to be an army that takes a while to really learn to use.

Any thoughts on that thread or my comments?

[Pi666]

In my case, rating high CSM is for Plague marines, for having a high durability HQ, Obliterators, and some other things.
I rated Tau realtively high, 'cause i have lots of problems (and fun) with our Tau player.

[Bigred]

CSM are a bit flavorless right now, but are costed very aggressively.

They have multiple high quality units that are very dependable and generically useful (CSMs,Termys,DPs,Oblits,...)

So overall, they lost a lot of the glamour of the last book, but in the hands of a good player have a lot of oooomph for the points.

And personally, I think Plaguemarines are very 4th edition. The power center of the codex has shifted in 5th to other more lethal and points efficient units.

[awesomebob]

Personally, the codex that i feel can have an unfair advantage (cheese some might say) is the chaos book. Some units are pretty crappy, a bunch of them are solid choices no matter who you are, and some are absolute
killing machines that change my whole strategy just by being in my opponents list. Demon princes are the biggest example. Two winged DPs with warptime and nurgle-ized (or whatever your flavor is) are a serious threat to everything around them and must be taken into consideration at all times. Not many other units can control the board like that.

[sirrouga]

I don't play tournament or highly competitive games so my thoughts may vary quite a bit, just not my style of play there. But Plague Marines and Oblits are two big reasons I rated CSM high as well, also throw in the Defilers and Demon Princes (one of the best HQ's in the game in my opinion) you got a solid force. Even their other options can be pretty good when used right. I rated Tau pretty low because of they have less "better" options than some other armies and most Tau armies trend to play more along the same lines in my opinion.

The play style of the local area will greatly change how well different armies do as well. In my area for example, we have a massive 2 vanilla space marine players (Ultramarine and Imperial Fist) but I'm not going to base everything I think about vanilla space marines just on them (even through they are pretty good). We also at one point had around 7 different Chaos Marine players each playing differently from each other and each were completely different in how successful they were.

An other thing to keep in mind is that the survey asked to rate the different armies but not how much of a difference there is. CSM are rated higher but that doesn't mean they are going to win every game with those rated lower, they may have nicer tools but it doesn't promise a victory but just gives more or better options to get the job done. Look at where Necrons are falling in most of those lists, yet I still win games here and there with them against armies that are averaging at the top of the lists. I have things going against me quite often but things work out sometimes. Just because you have nicer tools doesn't always mean you build better stuff. :P

[RocketRollRebel]

Despite how "bland" the CSM codex may be it really is a very well written codex rules wise and has really been able to keep up with the new edition and its codexs. Demon Princes are a solid and cheap HQ, most of their troop choices are great (Plague Marines and Normal CSM especially) and some of the best in the game, cheap terminators are a nice plus and rock solid heavy support choices make CSM an all around nasty army.

[Bean]

The Chaos Codex is really quite good right now. Of the other 'marine' codices, only the Space Wolves really compare favorably at all.

The reason for this is that the Chaos codex has really good troops and HQs. CSMs are fantastic, as are Plague Marines and even Berserkers. Daemon Princes are, quite possibly, the best HQ choice in the game.

Where chaos is lacking is in good oddball units. Chaos fast attacks are terrible, and their elite section is only marginally better. Small, deep striking squads of terminators with combi-weapons are about the only particularly good option in the elites section, and even they are mainly worthwhile cause they're cheap. Chosen are fine, but CSMs are almost as good and scoring, which makes the Chosen a lack-luster option.

In heavy support, though, Chaos comes out fine, with Obliterators, Defilers, and Vindicators easily filling the roles in which Chaos troops and HQs struggle (by which I almost exclusively mean long-range fire).

The Chaos Codex might not be the best codex out there, but it's certainly up on the list, and a well constructed chaos army can put up a good fight against any army from any other codex.

[Lerra]

Tau is a strong army by itself, but the current meta is very bad for Tau. With the switch to 5th, there has been an increase in things Tau has a problem with (hordes, deep strikers, outflankers, fleet, high mobility assault units, etc.). Long range high-str firepower has fallen out of favor a bit, in favor of melta weaponry (which is expensive and difficult to use as Tau).

A good player can do a lot with Tau, but it's an uphill battle against the top-tier tournament lists. I see a lot of Tau players win the first two games at a tourney and then get slaughtered in the final rounds as they are going up against the popular power lists.

[Melissia]

Something I noticed is that people place Witch Hunters quite low, but in my experience a well-put-together Sisters of Battle army is definitely mid-rank or better. Perhaps they just haven't played against such an army in the hands of a competent player?

[Bean]

That seems likely, Melissia. Witch hunters aren't a common army, and I doubt that most people have enough experience with them or against them to rate them accurately. I put them at rank 8, but I know I don't know their codex well enough to have a particularly good basis for that judgement. I do feel like they can be a pretty reasonable army, though.

I imagine the same thing happens to Dark Eldar. I have no idea how good they are, because I just don't know much at all about their codex. I hear very conflicting reports. It seems like they're another army that would probably be pretty clearly medium tier if they were more common.

[Melissia]

I have a very good W/L ratio with my Sisters, personally. Their tactics may be stale due to having the same codex that they had nearly a decade ago, but they benefitted some from fifth edition and certainly enough to move up a few notches.

[Lord Azaghul]

I'n my area we have one sisters player, and he's been playing them for years - he's fairly decent, and I am amazed how much he can field at 2k.
We pretty much only have inqusition when they want to field a calladis assasin in a guard army.
SM's (with pedro/calgar) seem to be very common in my area, Orks are probably the 2nd largest choice and we have a few budding guard players.

From my experience guard are really a top tier army, so I'm also suprised to see how mid-ranged people are ranking them -BUT in this game it seems the better player will usually come out on top regardless of the army they field.

[Lerra]

It's a tricky business to compare codex strength.

The only pure Witchhunter forces I've seen played are fluff-based lists or modeller's armies with a "one of everything" approach. If you compare a "one of everything" WH list versus a "one of everything" space marine list, the SM list will win most of the time.

I'd say that the WH codex as a whole is not that competitive, but certain lists within it are very competitive. Most of the older codices have that same issue.

Didn't a pure WH player take 3rd at a large tournament recently? I remember lots of people were surprised by how effective the army was.

[Bean]

I believe you, Melissia, but it takes a lot more data than one person's good win-loss record to provide a good justification for forming an opinion about an army. One person's experience doesn't account for that person's local meta-game, the competence of that person's regular opponents, or luck. It doesn't really provide any useful data at all.

Now, I don't have any data at all which justifies my ranking of the Sisters--I doubt most people do--but I'd be more inclined to form a real opinion about them based on a more in-depth analysis of their options and expected performance in important or likely situations against other armies than I would based on personal testimony.

[Melissia]

And until you actually have such analyses-- and an accurate and unbiased one at that--, then I would go so far as to say I would know more about their competativeness than you do.

[Chumbalaya]

I'm surprised myself.

WH and Tau are very nasty when done properly, mech Sisters/Immo spam and mixed mech heavy on suits and railguns respectively.

CSM are overcosted vanilla marines without anything as awesome as TH/SS Termies and a heavy reliance on overcosted and underperforming units. I'd put them on the same level as Orks, noobslayer armies that can smash apart poorly put together lists or inexperienced players, but severely handicapped against a good list/player.

[Bean]

And until you actually have such analyses-- and an accurate and unbiased one at that--, then I would go so far as to say I would know more about their competativeness than you do.

Sure, obviously. I know almost nothing about them at all. I'm not convinced at all that they rank eighth out of the set of all 40k armies.

I'm just saying that your testimony shouldn't be enough to convince anyone that they should be higher, either. It's more reasonable for me to just remain uncertain about them in general than to presume them to be at a certain point on the scale or even "good" in general just because you do well with them.


On another note:


CSM are overcosted vanilla marines without anything as awesome as TH/SS Termies and a heavy reliance on overcosted and underperforming units

Really, Chumbalaya?

CSMs are cheaper than vanilla marines, per guy. They have better leadership, double close combat weapons, and the ability to take two special weapons per squad, which makes them much better in Rhinos than vanilla marines. While it's true that the CSM squad, fully equipped, costs more than a vanilla marine squad, it's undeniably a better unit--even for its cost. It's got better shots coming out of the Rhino, it's less likely to get pinned when the Rhino explodes, and it's much better in combat.

CSMs don't have TH/SS terminators, nor do we have good Land Raiders (though ours are somewhat cheaper, which is something). We don't have multi-melta land speeders or bikes as troops, and all of those things are a little rough.

Even so, CSM troops are powerful, versatile units which significantly outperform regular marines. Our Daemon Prince is much better than any Marine HQ, and the good portions of our Heavy Support are comparable to any of the good Marine support units. All in all, CSM are fairly competitive--and definitely more competitive than most vanilla marine armies. Bikes, though, might constitute an exception.

[RocketRollRebel]

Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I have never played against before. I have both codex's and I have used both in very small games but I havent faced them. Sisters I can see how they can be nasty but Dark Eldar just seem screwed by so many things that even a very skilled player would have a difficult time dealing with their handicaps. It seems like that with DE something like a few bad dice rolls could be the end of the game for you.

[eagleboy7259]

Weirdly enough people have rated the Tau & Black Templars relatively low so far. The lowest score that either the Imperial Guard or the Chaos Marines have recieved so far is 9 but they are far in the lead. Orks and Space Wolves probably make up the 3-4 slot right now and space marines and eldar the 5-6. Demons and Dark Eldar are all over the map. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Tyranids make up the lower half and Demonhunters, Necrons, and Witch Hunters are seeded solidly at the bottom

[bryce963]

I have lost horribly to sisters before, they can get a lot of skilled 3+ saves running around, with the same maneuverability as marines and for cheaper. With all those meltas and flamers, they can hurt just about anything at short range.

And if they build a hybrid guard/sisters army, they can do long, short, and medium range fairly well, and have capable and more resilient than guard troops to take objectives. Adding the range of the guard, and some of the weird stuff that inquisitors can do makes a combo force possibly mean.

I have only fought a hybrid list, and can't speak for pure sisters, the hybrid is good, and I can see how sisters would be good as well.

[Chumbalaya]

CSMs are cheaper than vanilla marines, per guy. They have better leadership, double close combat weapons, and the ability to take two special weapons per squad, which makes them much better in Rhinos than vanilla marines. While it's true that the CSM squad, fully equipped, costs more than a vanilla marine squad, it's undeniably a better unit--even for its cost. It's got better shots coming out of the Rhino, it's less likely to get pinned when the Rhino explodes, and it's much better in combat.

Woo, S4 attacks, watch me quiver in fear. No ATSKNF, no combat tactics. Double melta suicide squads work about as well as GH suicide melta squads. Jump out, maybe pop something, die miserably. Vanilla marines can sit back on objectives with their multi-melta and threaten vehicles from further out.


CSMs don't have TH/SS terminators, nor do we have good Land Raiders (though ours are somewhat cheaper, which is something). We don't have multi-melta land speeders or bikes as troops, and all of those things are a little rough.

Or cheap medium S firepower to knock out transports, or competitive Fast or Elite options, or a lot of things.


Even so, CSM troops are powerful, versatile units which significantly outperform regular marines. Our Daemon Prince is much better than any Marine HQ, and the good portions of our Heavy Support are comparable to any of the good Marine support units. All in all, CSM are fairly competitive--and definitely more competitive than most vanilla marine armies. Bikes, though, might constitute an exception.

Hooray for S4 attacks and suicide squads, why aren't you just using Plague Marines? Marine heavies are the same, only cheaper. DP is a big flying target, Null Zone makes him cry. Vanilla marines are more flexible, have overall better stuff, and have easy ways to minimize their weaknesses. CSM are pretty much locked into a handful of obvious picks because their book is so poorly internally balanced, and even those are either overcosted, underperforming, or just don't all mesh nicely together. They're down with Orks, noobslayers who fold to a good army.

[ZSpartan]

Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I have never played against before. I have both codex's and I have used both in very small games but I havent faced them. Sisters I can see how they can be nasty but Dark Eldar just seem screwed by so many things that even a very skilled player would have a difficult time dealing with their handicaps. It seems like that with DE something like a few bad dice rolls could be the end of the game for you.

I am in the same boat with the WH and Dark Eldar. My local store doesnt even have any of the Dark Eldar stuff for sale I dont think. So in my rating of the codexes i just left both out because of having never even seen either played by anyone else much less against me.

[Vindur]

Give the DE a while Rocket, they take a bit of time to get used to but its worth it. The are a suprisingly powerful army when used correctly and a good fun to play

[Chumbalaya]

DE are absolutely filthy, I just wish the models weren't pants :P

[Bean]

Woo, S4 attacks, watch me quiver in fear. No ATSKNF, no combat tactics. Double melta suicide squads work about as well as GH suicide melta squads. Jump out, maybe pop something, die miserably. Vanilla marines can sit back on objectives with their multi-melta and threaten vehicles from further out.


When it's twice as many S4 attacks as your marine squad, it means that my Chaos Marines win in combat virtually every time.

A multimelta in a rhino has a greater threat range than a Melta by 6" (since the Rhino can move 6" and the guy can fire the gun out the top). After considering the ability of the melta squad to move up, disembark and fire, the MM has a much shorter threat range.

Plus, Chaos Space Marines are much harder in combat, so they don't just die when they get out. If they get out and blow up that rhino (fairly likely with two shots) you lose about as many guys to the Rhino blowing up as I do to your pistol shots (more, actually) and we're doing about even on the charge--and that's presuming you don't blow your leadership and get pinned.

Or you could rapid fire against me, doing somewhat more damage than I did to you by popping your Rhino, then I could charge you and win combat anyway.

Finally, while combat tactics and ATSKNF are certainly good, neither helps you when it comes to making the most important leadership test you're going to make: the pinning test you take when your Rhino gets popped. Chaos Marines have much better leadership, with re-rollable tens, than Marines and the Marines' special abilities only make up for the difference--they don't really push the Marines over the top.



Or cheap medium S firepower to knock out transports,

It's true, but, then, Marines don't have much of that, either. It's pretty much Tac-squad heavy weapons, which, to use, require your tac squad to sit around doing little else.



or competitive Fast or Elite options, or a lot of things.


True again, but we more than make up for it by having much better troops.



Hooray for S4 attacks and suicide squads, why aren't you just using Plague Marines? Marine heavies are the same, only cheaper. DP is a big flying target, Null Zone makes him cry. Vanilla marines are more flexible, have overall better stuff, and have easy ways to minimize their weaknesses. CSM are pretty much locked into a handful of obvious picks because their book is so poorly internally balanced, and even those are either overcosted, underperforming, or just don't all mesh nicely together. They're down with Orks, noobslayers who fold to a good army.

I like plague marines, too, but CSMs are very good. They're more versatile, more powerful, and have better options than vanilla marines. The main weakness of the vanilla marine is that it's worse in combat than a Chaos Marine, whereas the Chaos Marines don't have much in the way of weaknesses at all. At worst, you could say of them that they are very short-ranged, but that's only because they routinely forgo their long ranged weapons for a better option--another melta or flamer--which leaves them, again, better than regular marines which don't have the option for double specials at all.

DPs are big targets, but they're more than sufficiently tough for their cost (null-zone doesn't have much of an effect at all--they mostly fail those 5+ invulnerable saves when they have to take them anyway). They're far better than any marine equivalent in terms of versatility, durability, and damage output, and they work very well with an aggressive mechanized chaos army.

Chaos Marines are almost certainly the best Marine army option, with the possible exception of Space Wolves. They are competitive with any other army in the game, and beat the pants off virtually any vanilla marine army you can make.

Sorry, Chumbalaya, the facts you're using to support your position are just wrong, and the conclusion they've led you to is wrong as well. There's really nothing else to say.

[RocketRollRebel]

I agree with bean that taking two special weapons is a better option than a special and a heavy. Marines do best mechanized and in rapid fire range in my opinion.

Yeah Demon Princes do go down comparatively easier than other MC's but they can take hits that would have otherwise been directed at your vehicles or vice versa. Yeah they wont stand up in CC to things like TH/SS terminators for more than a turn but then what MC really can? Plus they are very cheap.

But yes CSM do need some better elites and fast attack and HQ's besides Demon Princes for sure.

[DarkLink]

Woo, S4 attacks, watch me quiver in fear. No ATSKNF, no combat tactics. Double melta suicide squads work about as well as GH suicide melta squads. Jump out, maybe pop something, die miserably. Vanilla marines can sit back on objectives with their multi-melta and threaten vehicles from further out.

One extra Str4 attack isn't a big deal, but 10 for 1pt/model less than a SM is.

They may not have ATSKNF, but they can reroll their Ld tests with Icon of Chaos Glory.

And I'm not sure if I would call 10 Marines a suicide squad, especially if the rest of your army is behind it. In fact, I'm far more concerned about a bunch of Marines with Melta-guns bum-rushing me, rather than sitting on an objective pretending to look scary.



Hooray for S4 attacks and suicide squads, why aren't you just using Plague Marines? Marine heavies are the same, only cheaper. DP is a big flying target, Null Zone makes him cry. Vanilla marines are more flexible, have overall better stuff, and have easy ways to minimize their weaknesses. CSM are pretty much locked into a handful of obvious picks because their book is so poorly internally balanced, and even those are either overcosted, underperforming, or just don't all mesh nicely together. They're down with Orks, noobslayers who fold to a good army.

Yeah, Plague Marines are better than normal CSM. That doesn't mean normal CSM are bad, and frankly, I think they're better than Tactical Marines. I know I'm far less intimidated by Tactical Marines than by CSM's.

DPs are a big target, sure, but they're also really, really good for their cost. Plus, if you keep them hidden behind Rhinos you get cover saves. Null Zone doesn't hurt then.

Yeah, CSM lists have somewhat limited options that are really good, but those options are very good ones.




So, Chumby you think ANY codices are competitive :p?

[Melissia]

A multimelta in a rhino has a greater threat range than a Melta by 6" (since the Rhino can move 6" and the guy can fire the gun out the top).

Err, what? No, that's not right. I recall that if the vehicle moves, then the models within count as having moved for the purpose of shooting.

[Duke]

The whole CSM vs sm debate is lame... Each side whines about one thing or another, but in the end I have seen great lists from both codecies

[Melissia]

I agree. People complain about Tacticals, but they're EXTREMELY efficient points-wise. People say that Sisters are efficient for the points you spend on them, but Marines get far more point per point, especially in a mechanized list.

[Duke]

Err, what? No, that's not right. I recall that if the vehicle moves, then the models within count as having moved for the purpose of shooting.

She is right if a vehicle moves then the troops inside count as moving as well.

[DarkLink]

I agree. People complain about Tacticals, but they're EXTREMELY efficient points-wise. People say that Sisters are efficient for the points you spend on them, but Marines get far more point per point, especially in a mechanized list.

Yeah, the Sisters squads I run are 174pts, not including the Rhino. A similarly equipped SM squad is 205. So for 31pts, you get +1 WS, +1 S, +1 T and grenades on everybody. Pretty good. Though it would be nice to take two meltas in a SM tactical squad.

[Melissia]

+1 WS, S, T, I, pistols, frag/krak nades. Don't doubt the power of bolt pistols-- Sisters would be so much better if they had them.

[RocketRollRebel]

When compaired to the last marine 'dex I'd say sisters were a better deal but not so much anymore.

[Bean]

A multimelta in a rhino has a greater threat range than a Melta by 6" (since the Rhino can move 6" and the guy can fire the gun out the top).



Err, what? No, that's not right. I recall that if the vehicle moves, then the models within count as having moved for the purpose of shooting.

The melta can be shot after moving.

So, a multi-melta out of the top of a rhino has a 24" range. A melta out of the top of the rhino has a 12" range, plus the 6" of Rhino movement. 12" + 6" is 18", and 24" is 6" greater than 18".



She is right if a vehicle moves then the troops inside count as moving as well.

She's right about that, but wrong about her overall point. See above.



The whole CSM vs sm debate is lame... Each side whines about one thing or another, but in the end I have seen great lists from both codecies

I play Chaos--I'm not whining about the other side. =P

Also, it's true that I have seen good vanilla SM lists, but none of them had more than one tactical squad in it.

[Melissia]

The melta can be shot after moving.
A melta is an assault weapon. A multimelta is a heavy weapon.

From the 5th edition rulebook (the pdf version has it on page 76):

Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the
vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle
moved at Cruising speed that turn.

Ergo, a multimelta cannot be fired if the vehicle it is in moves. I am most assuredly right-- a heavy weapon cannot be fired by an infantry model if the infantry model has moved, and an infantry model in a transport that has moved counts as having moved, ergo, that infantry model may not fire its heavy weapon (unless it has a special rule such as relentless).

[Bean]

A melta is an assault weapon. A multimelta is a heavy weapon.

From the 5th edition rulebook (the pdf version has it on page 76):


Ergo, a multimelta cannot be fired if the vehicle it is in moves. I am most assuredly right-- a heavy weapon cannot be fired by an infantry model if the infantry model has moved, and an infantry model in a transport that has moved counts as having moved, ergo, that infantry model may not fire its heavy weapon (unless it has a special rule such as relentless).

I never ever said that a multi-melta can be fired from a moving rhino. I know that it cannot, and that knowledge is not relevant at all to the point. That part of what you said is correct. The part where you said:
No, that's not right. with regards to my statement was wrong. No part of my statement was wrong.

Once again, my statement was that a multimelta in a rhino has a threat range which is 6" greater than that of a meltagun, presuming the melta-carrier doesn't disembark. This is true because:

The multi-melta has a 24" range.

The meltagun has a 12" range and the Rhino can move 6" before the meltagun fires, giving it a total threat range of 18".

24" is 6" greater than 18", thus the multi-melta has a 6" greater threat range than the meltagun.

That was my statement. No part of it is wrong. Thus, your statement was incorrect.

Your other statement, that marines can't fire heavy weapons out of rhinos which have moved, is both obvious and irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

[Melissia]

Then you should have made your post more clear about that. From the wording of your post, it sounded like you were assuming that heavy weapons could be fired from within a transport that had moved.

[Bean]

Or, perhaps, you should have read my post more carefully, since the one number I presented is only accurate for the comparison between the meltagun moving and shooting out of the top of the rhino and the multi-melta firing out of the rhino without the rhino moving.

Or, you could have realized that a substitute noun (not a pronoun in this case, but very similar in terms of function) generally refers to the most recent noun, which in the case of my paragraph was melta, rather than multi-melta.

Or, since, at worst, it could be said that my post was ambiguous (since it definitely didn't carry any actual implication that "gun" referred to the multi-melta at all) you could have presumed that I knew the rules, worked out the math to see that I did, in fact, know the rules, and not erroneously called me out on them.

Or, you could have read my second post, where I explained what I was talking about quite clearly, and refrained from repeated your error a second time.

But, in fact, you chose to do none of those things. You failed to read any of my posts carefully. You didn't bother to try understand what I was saying, even when I explained it a second time, and you repeatedly accused me of an error I didn't make.

Don't try to couch it now by saying that my original post justified your original opinion. Not only did it not, but you took the time to compound your error well after I had left no doubt that it was an error. No, Melissia, you have no one to blame for that but yourself.

[Melissia]

I'm not the one that originally wrote your post, Bean. I don't know what specifically is intended by any particular post, only what the post says when I read it and the connotations I read into it. English is not a perfect language, nor do I claim to have the ability to perfectly comprehend everything that is said in every post ever made.

[Bean]

I'm not the one that originally wrote your post, Bean. I don't know what specifically is intended by any particular post, only what the post says when I read it and the connotations I read into it. English is not a perfect language, nor do I claim to have the ability to perfectly comprehend everything that is said in every post ever made.

You didn't write my post. You did misread it twice, though, and there's really no way you can argue that the second one was unclear. I made a post, you said it was wrong. It wasn't wrong, so I wrote it out again, explaining in more detail why it wasn't wrong. Again, you said it was wrong. So, I explained it again, a third time. You finally got it, but chose to blame your prior two misunderstandings on my writing, which was unjustified. It was somewhat more justified with regards to the first post, but not at all justified with the second.

If this is an admission that your reading comprehension was at fault, then that's all I was really looking for, and thank you. We can put this behind us.

If not, will you at least refrain from blaming your errors on me in the future?

[Melissia]

I'm not blaming it entirely on anything. As I said, I don't claim to have the capacity to perfectly understand every post ever made.

[Bean]

Fair enough. I'll try to be more clear in the future.