Tarot wrote:
Clearly it's not the way I read it. Then you clarify saying your statements are CLEARLY about T5/6 gear. If so, there'd be no need to clarify it, you could simply quote yourself and say 'See here...it's crystal clear'. It's not.
I could maybe,
maybe buy the idea of what I said was only 99% clear rather than 100%, but the fact that you would've read:
Givin wrote:
The reason I don't put a lot of faith in the "It is better later" arguments is usually by the time you can gear up enough to make those kinds of specs work, you're already at the end of the content so it doesn't really matter.
Sure you can move over to destruction when you got the top of the line gear on farm to make any spec work and fine tune your role, but that isn't the case here.
...before your second response to me, did in fact make things crystal clear.
Tarot wrote:
So I took your comment as someone who was deep in the destruction tree (around 41 points or so). Because otherwise I'd use the term 'end game' not 'higher end destruction', but that's just me.
I'd be impressed if you could find one instance amongst the thousands of WoW forums, of someone having used the term 'high end destruction' in reference to the amount of points in their build, 'deep destruction' maybe but not 'high end'.
And just for kicks, let's ignore all of that and suppose for a second I did mean high end destruction in terms of majority points invested.
Givin wrote:
No fight is worth having a warlock spec destruction.
Argrax wrote:
Destruction, with the majority of your talent points, can be and often is, superior to affliction.
Now if that's what I actually responded with, it would've implied that Givin, when he said destruction spec, meant a destruction spec with less than the majority of points spent in the tree.
Now does that make sense? I didn't think so either.