Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I swear we could make it to 1000 pages just asking this clown to answer a very straightforward question every time he posts a non-answer

Troxx is talking about himself again. It took many pages of trolling and dodging just to get Troxx to admit his pocket character restriction was completely subjective.

His question about pocket characters being restricted is irrelevant to this thread.

This means all of his arguments insisting you can't have a pocket cleric are invalid, by his own admission. Please disregard them moving forward.

[Troxx]

The last 40+ pages have been a chore

Thanks Tox - page 168

Originally Posted by Toxigen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dear Diary,

Over this Labor Day weekend I contributed to a 168 page elf sim thread arguing for the value of a shaman in a 4 man caster group. I presented my data which supported a shaman doing as much damage as a mage.

It seems as though my fellow elves do not agree with me. Yet the data simply shows I am correct. I wonder why this is? How can I post more to convince my colleagues that I am correct in everything I say on elforums?

I cannot think of a better way to spend a long weekend. Surely I will prevail.

Until next time, diary.

Originally Posted by Gloomlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If there's one good thing we can get out of this thread, it's that DSM is never going to be taken seriously again. He has completely tarnished his reputation as a voice of wisdom.

His "victory" is going to be a pyrrhic one, at the very least.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The last 40+ pages have been a chore

Thanks Tox - page 168

They were indeed. Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong after tens of pages of trolling and dodging one simple question: "Is there a restriction on pocket characters in this thread?"

Troxx admitted he has no objective evidence for this restriction, it is just his subjective opinion.

All arguments insisting pocket clerics are not allowed from Troxx are now invalid, by Troxx's own admission.

[Troxx]

The last 40 pages as in 120ish to page 168

God you are dense

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is back to talking to himself. I wonder how long he will go. We shall see.

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion. It took long enough for Troxx to admit he was wrong. Many pages of trolling and dodging were required for Troxx to admit he was wrong. But I say this is progress!

This removes a point of contention, making future debates smoother. One less question for Troxx to dodge.

[Duik]

Thank god.
Someone finally "won" can we kill this fucker (the thread) now?

[Toxigen]

whew lads did we have a good weekend?

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion.

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

[Toxigen]

1,766 replies

1000x just repeating the same thing over and over about pocket clerics and other irrelevant things

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

Not at all. You admitted you have no objective evidence to support the pocket character restriction.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the god damn title of this thread along with the first 100+ pages of the thread.

The title of the thread does not say "no pocket characters", nor does OP say it in the first 100+ pages.

This means you are subjectively interpreting the title, and have no objective evidence supporting the no pocket character restriction.

Thank you for admitting there is no actual pocket character restriction. You made it up. We are in agreement.

Moving forward, all arguments regarding a pocket character restriction are invalid.