Weird battle

V vehystrixOP

OP 02/06/2011 · 07:29 AM #1

xxxxxxxxx`s fleet
Tourmaline Fighter 126 13 113
F.Sword Destroyer 1 1 0
Strafez Queen 1 1 0
Large Strafez Runner 1 1 0
C.Gemini Frigate 1 1 0
Large Strafez Fodder 1 1 0
F.Axe Frigate 1 1 0
Light Frigate Frigate 1 1 0
Small Strafez Runner 1 1 0
C.Aries Corvette 1 1 0
vehystrix`s fleet
Large Strafez Fodder 361 361 0
M.Epidote Destroyer 79 79 0
F.Broadsword Destroyer 66 66 0
M.Lakko Starbase 3 3 0
M.Chlorite Destroyer 59 0 59
M.Flysch Battleship 10 0 10
Strafez King 80 0 80
G.Sapphire Destroyer 4 0 4
A.Aragonite Dreadnought 14 0 14
M.Lyth Dreadnought 2 0 2

someone, please enlighten me how I lost those 3 lakko?
1st wave, tourm kills fodder, my stacks kill his dummies.
2nd wave, epi hits tourm and self-wipes, borad hits tourm and self wipes. All other stacks also hit tourm with no-retal and survive, except for lakko...

Either lakko lost its no-retal (which it didn`t, I checked) or there`s something more sinister going on here...

G GradualIncline

03/06/2011 · 12:44 PM #22

I didn`t know the third definition there vehystrix, things you learn.

*grabs his cane and starts limping away*

Oh, an in my day it was Treg-bot :P Oooo imagine Treg back *gets teleported back to 03*

W WhatIsTheMatrix

03/06/2011 · 11:53 AM #21

He screams......Belial! Belial! The Enforcer of all rules and the scourge of misdemeanors! All hail Ghostof----I mean, Belial.... GhostofJ

U UberPansy

03/06/2011 · 06:46 AM #20

Thanks for clarifying vehystrix!

V vehystrixOP

03/06/2011 · 06:37 AM #19

Oh and allow me to add:
I do know that sinister is usually not used to mean unfortunate or unfavorable. I however chose this wording to lighten up the question with humor. You see, I don`t want to be seen as a sore loser asking these questions, hence I jokingly implied a dark and sinister (meaning 1 and/or 2 this time) force may be playing with the results (no not cheating, think more along the lines of witchcraft and sorcery, because it is, after all, a joke)

V vehystrixOP

03/06/2011 · 06:31 AM #18

If it`s about my use of sinister, allow me to elaborate:

sin·is·ter /ˈsɪnəstər/ [sin-uh-ster] –adjective
1. threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark.
2. bad, evil, base, or wicked; fell: his sinister purposes.
3. unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident.

Note the 3rd meaning, unfortunate or unfavorable.
Now reread the sentence:
Either lakko lost its no-retal (which it didn`t, I checked) or there`s something more unfortunate going on here...

I was simply referring to something about battle mechanics that I may not have known about that may be the cause of this battle result. Such a battle mechanic, especially if it causes me to lose ships, is unfavorable for me if I am unable to account for it due to it being unknown to me. Hence my use of sinister as it being unfortunate or unfavorable.
Long story short, there was no cheating implied, not at all. I know you can`t cheat in a battle. I was simply referring to a force unknown to me that skewed (again from my original point of view, this battle result was impossible, hence the use of skewed, I hope I won`t have to delve into this as well) the battle results.

And Ghost, no offense, but you really shouldn`t try your hardest to find people that may or may not be brushing against the rules, as this my cause your popularity to dwindle.

If i was completely convinced you were accusing someone of cheating, I would have blanked the post and warned you explicitly. That said, I`ve been out of high school for quite some time and as such my life is not run by the drive to be `popular.` I am here to enforce the rules to the letter.

Edited by GhostofJ on 2011-06-03

W WendysBaconator

03/06/2011 · 05:30 AM #17

Back talk...nice...trigger...colored text...

Are you Belial? Are we getting punked?

T Treize

02/06/2011 · 08:48 PM #16

The roflcopter better be on it`s way before it gets shot the freak down....

J JJtheJetPlane

02/06/2011 · 04:54 PM #15

not sure its a good idea to egg on a guy who suspended at least 2 people the first day he was here. just sayin

N NiHiLiM

02/06/2011 · 04:35 PM #14

Ghost is seeing ghost :p

oh .. oh.. i think i got it!..
he might be pointing to this: "or there`s something more sinister going on here..."

U UberPansy

02/06/2011 · 04:20 PM #13

Are you in the right thread GhostofJ, in fact no cheating was inferred at all.

F FistOfNoRemorse

02/06/2011 · 03:06 PM #12

calm your trigger finger sir

Really? I was the nicest I`ve been on this forum to date in my original response to him and you decide to back talk me? I suggest you do not pretend you can tell me how to enforce the forum rules.

Edited by GhostofJ on 2011-06-02

G GhostofJ

02/06/2011 · 03:01 PM #11

I`m aware there was no cheating involved. I said to not insinuate that there was foul play to begin with on the regular forums.

F FistOfNoRemorse

02/06/2011 · 11:12 AM #10

false possitive ghost, there was none

G GhostofJ

02/06/2011 · 10:42 AM #9

Asking a question about a battle is fine; in the future, however, do not insinuate there is cheating involved on the regular forum please.

Edited by GhostofJ on 2011-06-02

F FISTFULLOFDOLLARS

02/06/2011 · 10:16 AM #8

If tour didn`t have `No Retal` that would not have happened

G GradualIncline

02/06/2011 · 08:32 AM #7

I think MD is correct, the Epi being longer range self-wipes on the Tourm before the Tourm actually has it`s turn to fire, and so does the Broadsword, leaving the Lakko the stack it attacks. Had the Tourm been longer ranged than either the Epi or Broad, then the Lakko would have not been wiped.

V vehystrixOP

02/06/2011 · 08:18 AM #6

And here I thought stacking should have the advantage
>_<
back to spamming I guess...

M MajorDinero

02/06/2011 · 08:14 AM #5

it happens VE. That`s just another reason why spams are so awesome

C Crack

02/06/2011 · 07:53 AM #4

Most prob.. What md said..

V vehystrixOP

02/06/2011 · 07:34 AM #3

seriously?
I didn`t know they got a free hit when something self-wipes on them

Reply