So why can't you truthfully answer the question of why you treat the -1T modifier from Enfeeble not being able to resolve due to lack of a profile differently to the To hit roll from PS that can't resolve due to a lack of profile?

This is what the 5th time I've asked now and I'm guessing I'm still no nearer the answer. So why can't you truthfully answer the question? Why do you always avoid the question or lie in your response?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why can't you truthfully answer the question of why you treat the -1T modifier from Enfeeble not being able to resolve due to lack of a profile differently to the To hit roll from PS that can't resolve due to a lack of profile?

This is what the 5th time I've asked now and I'm guessing I'm still no nearer the answer. So why can't you truthfully answer the question? Why do you always avoid the question or lie in your response?

I gave you my answer already. See above.

Look. You have already slipped into being abusive here in your argumentation. Truthfulness, lying, honesty have nothing to do with my responses. If somehow I apply one way of doing something in one answer and apply another way of doing something for a separate question then my logical fault is that I am being inconsistent. But in no way am I lying. And moreover, I am being consistent in my application of reason and I think you are struggling to understand just like you seem to struggle with the meaning of words like "lying". If you make anymore accusations of lying against me I will report you.

What are you missing from the profile?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why can't you truthfully answer the question of why you treat the -1T modifier from Enfeeble not being able to resolve due to lack of a profile differently to the To hit roll from PS that can't resolve due to a lack of profile?

This is what the 5th time I've asked now and I'm guessing I'm still no nearer the answer. So why can't you truthfully answer the question? Why do you always avoid the question or lie in your response?

i think you making the mistake of thinking resolve = apply the effects when that is not the definition hence why he's pointing out they are not the same. Resolving is determining the outcome . The power is resolved at no effect since there is nothing to modify. This is not the same thing a a blanket statement that you must roll a to hit roll. Resolving actually gives a bit of leeway on outcomes provided

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
And what is the Strength of Psychic Shriek?

GW does not provide you with that info. The rules are broken. You are missing a critical profile. You cannot resolve PS from a pure RAW standpoint. We are by necessity in house rule land. Since it's fairly obvious what the RAI would be, following BAO, NOVA, ETC is the way to go from there.

So why not make up a Strength? As long as we're going to make up a profile.

It's fine to make up a Strength characteristic, but make no mistake, you are treading into HYWPI and are no longer strictly RAW. Some things you can infer (or supply a default for) about a profile from the rules but not Strength.

This is what I consider to be the most elegant profile for PS since it does the minimal required to enable PS to resolve as witchfire (which is RAI). The bit in the Strength is HYWPI, but to get PS to work, you are required to do some measure of HYWPI. Strict RAW is broken. This follows the examples set by other weapons that wound against Leadership.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Witchfire powers require you to roll to hit. Rolling zero dice does not satisfy this requirement. 

Casting enfeeble on a vehicle does not end the game. It is perfectly legal to do so. There is nothing broken in its resolution. 

So how do you resolve the required step of applying -1T to the vehicle?

There are two possible answers. Either the vehicle is not affected since it does not have a Toughness to modify or the vehicle is insta-killed. I pick the non-silly answer.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why can it not be answered in general?

nosferatu, what say you? Ignore the rule, make something up, or other? What about you Jinx?

The only RaW answer is to leave the unresolvable situation unresolved. Any actions that depend on the resolution of that action are likewise left and we carry on with what can be resolved.

This is a Recap of your argument FlingItNow

Spoiler:

Psychic Shriek is broken.
Because it's broken I can't resolve it as witchfire which is required by the rules.
I can't resolve a To Hit Roll or a To Wound Roll, which are required by the rules.
Luckily though, because it's broken the game will freeze at their resolution so I can magically skip these steps and magically jump to the resolution text of Psychic Shriek and resolve the power anyway.

This is a ridiculous line of argumentation. You are basically admitting Psychic Shriek is broken beyond repair and then leveraging that brokenness to allow you to skip required steps and have it work magically.

I don't think that you are required to roll to wound, and honestly you can treat the 3d6 leadership test wounds as the result of rolling one to hit roll (kind of like D) (HYWPI)

Not every shooting attack in the game requires a to wound roll. If that's the case, why doesn't markerlight inflict wounds?

Whacked wrote:

I don't think that you are required to roll to wound, and honestly you can treat the 3d6 leadership test wounds as the result of rolling one to hit roll (kind of like D) (HYWPI)

Not every shooting attack in the game requires a to wound roll. If that's the case, why doesn't markerlight inflict wounds?

Because rules of the Tau codex make it explicitly so that they do not inflict wounds . . .

I gave you my answer already. See above. 

Look. You have already slipped into being abusive here in your argumentation. Truthfulness, lying, honesty have nothing to do with my responses. If somehow I apply one way of doing something in one answer and apply another way of doing something for a separate question then my logical fault is that I am being inconsistent. But in no way am I lying. And moreover, I am being consistent in my application of reason and I think you are struggling to understand just like you seem to struggle with the meaning of words like "lying". If you make anymore accusations of lying against me I will report you.

Sorry but how am I being abusive? You said your response wasn't true not me. That is what you have said. So are you now going back on that and saying your response is true and that both options are valid for PS? Or was your response a lie? Which s it?

Col - it is a little rich to complain about Flings style, when you make up their "argument" and keep posting it as if it were a quote, or real. Definition of a strawman.

Oh, and you were caught in a lie - you said you treat things the same, but when pressed admit you do not.

Given youre making up a number of shots (1) why not make up a strength? Or for enfeeble why not make up a Toughness of say "2", given you enjoy making up numbers?

In order to complete Roll To Hit I must roll a dice for every shot. I have NO shots, as PROVEN, so I succesfully complete step 4 - I have rolled every dice that is needed

Where you are completly hoist on your argument, and cannot help but be inconsistent (a sign of a failing argument, btw) is that rolling 0 dice to-wound is just fine for you, but rolling 0 dice to-hit isnt. Both are worded similarly enough that they are identical requirements; if your contention is correct (it isnt, this is a postulate to show even IF you are correct in one element, you are still wrong over all) that rolling 0 dice to-hit is a nonsense, and breaks things, then so does rolling 0 dice to wound.

You have failed, utterly, to prove a thing, and are still using logical fallacies (strawman argument, appeal to authority) to try to prove your point.

RAW you roll 0 dice, satisfying the rules for step 4, and thus step 5. You then, as told to by the psychic power rules, resolve the rest of the power - which is the 3D6

Fling - I owuldnt bother asking more, I asked at least 4 times why they are asserting, with no rules backing, that you can only wound from a to-wound roll, to no avail. Another sign of a failed argument.

Happy - I would ignore it, as it is unresolvable, and unresolvable rules have no part in a game that needs to end. That is at least a consistent viewpoint

 FlingitNow wrote:

I gave you my answer already. See above. 

Look. You have already slipped into being abusive here in your argumentation. Truthfulness, lying, honesty have nothing to do with my responses. If somehow I apply one way of doing something in one answer and apply another way of doing something for a separate question then my logical fault is that I am being inconsistent. But in no way am I lying. And moreover, I am being consistent in my application of reason and I think you are struggling to understand just like you seem to struggle with the meaning of words like "lying". If you make anymore accusations of lying against me I will report you.

Sorry but how am I being abusive? You said your response wasn't true not me. That is what you have said. So are you now going back on that and saying your response is true and that both options are valid for PS? Or was your response a lie? Which s it?

I said no such thing. You seem to be radically confused about the definition of lying. Are you a native speaker of English?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - it is a little rich to complain about Flings style, when you make up their "argument" and keep posting it as if it were a quote, or real. Definition of a strawman.

Oh, and you were caught in a lie - you said you treat things the same, but when pressed admit you do not.

Given youre making up a number of shots (1) why not make up a strength? Or for enfeeble why not make up a Toughness of say "2", given you enjoy making up numbers?

In order to complete Roll To Hit I must roll a dice for every shot. I have NO shots, as PROVEN, so I succesfully complete step 4 - I have rolled every dice that is needed

Where you are completly hoist on your argument, and cannot help but be inconsistent (a sign of a failing argument, btw) is that rolling 0 dice to-wound is just fine for you, but rolling 0 dice to-hit isnt. Both are worded similarly enough that they are identical requirements; if your contention is correct (it isnt, this is a postulate to show even IF you are correct in one element, you are still wrong over all) that rolling 0 dice to-hit is a nonsense, and breaks things, then so does rolling 0 dice to wound.

You have failed, utterly, to prove a thing, and are still using logical fallacies (strawman argument, appeal to authority) to try to prove your point.

RAW you roll 0 dice, satisfying the rules for step 4, and thus step 5. You then, as told to by the psychic power rules, resolve the rest of the power - which is the 3D6

Fling - I owuldnt bother asking more, I asked at least 4 times why they are asserting, with no rules backing, that you can only wound from a to-wound roll, to no avail. Another sign of a failed argument.

Happy - I would ignore it, as it is unresolvable, and unresolvable rules have no part in a game that needs to end. That is at least a consistent viewpoint

This is mostly gibberish you are spouting off here. I am consistently applying reason and applying rules in all cases. I only apply HYWPI in cases where the rules are broken beyond repair, because doing so is of necessity.

You have failed to produce one example of a shooting attack with zero shots and yet your argument hinges on that. There are absolutely no cases of any shooting attacks with zero shots. This is a fiction that you have made up in order to bend the rules. If you disagree, please feel free to prove me otherwise.

The bubble that is being popped is yours. You may be able to convince some that your argument is RAW. But when it revolves around fictions you make up like "zero shot shooting attacks" then its just a bad HYWPI argument trying to masquerade as a strict RAW argument.

I repeat. There are absolutely no cases of any shooting attacks with zero shots. This is a fiction that you have made up in order to bend the rules. If you disagree, please feel free to prove me otherwise.

Are you going to man up and prove me otherwise?

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. If you wish to share any such images you need to use off site hosting. Reds8n

I said no such thing. You seem to be radically confused about the definition of lying. Are you a native speaker of English?

Are you an English speaker? You're not from England maybe that's why this is difficult for you to understand?

So which of my 2 options is correct:

1) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was that true and the options for -1T were both valid for the To Hit roll for PS?
2) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was not true (in English we call this a lie).

Just a number 1 or 2 is fine.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I said no such thing. You seem to be radically confused about the definition of lying. Are you a native speaker of English?

Are you an English speaker? You're not from England maybe that's why this is difficult for you to understand?

So which of my 2 options is correct:

1) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was that true and the options for -1T were both valid for the To Hit roll for PS?
2) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was not true (in English we call this a lie).

Just a number 1 or 2 is fine.

You are making absolutely no sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this gibberish?

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I said no such thing. You seem to be radically confused about the definition of lying. Are you a native speaker of English?

Are you an English speaker? You're not from England maybe that's why this is difficult for you to understand?

So which of my 2 options is correct:

1) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was that true and the options for -1T were both valid for the To Hit roll for PS?
2) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was not true (in English we call this a lie).

Just a number 1 or 2 is fine.

You are making absolutely no sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this gibberish?

So you can't understand plain English. What a shock another avoidance tactic. You've refused to answer the question on 7 or more occasions now and on the 1 occasion you did answer you said your answer wasn't true. Now you're feigning the inability to understand the question. I think you're done here.

 FlingitNow wrote:


So which of my 2 options is correct:

1) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was that true and the options for -1T were both valid for the To Hit roll for PS?
2) When you said you treated the -1T and the To Hit the same as the options for -1T were both valid was not true (in English we call this a lie).

Just a number 1 or 2 is fine.

Huh? Was that English? Again, I am asking for anyone to decipher what you spewed out there. With that chunk of absolute gibberish, you are only proving my point that you have a radical and fundamental problem with understanding and communicating.

Ok leys try this again:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why do you treat this differently to the roll to hit for PS?

I am not. Both options for enfeeble are valid applications of the rules. One leads to a silly result and so is discarded.

When you said this were you telling the truth yes or no?

Whacked wrote:
Side Note:I still don't get why people try to compare enfeeble to psychic shriek in this thread. It works on vehicles. You can reduce their 0 toughness to -1, but that does nothing to a vehicle, however a walker will still lose -1 strength. I don't see how relevant this is to the discussion.

This. Common sense prevails over rules ambiguity. If you can't apply -1T to something that doesn't have a Toughness value, don't! If you can apply -1S to something that has a Strength value, do!

I wondered how this thread could again go on and on and on and it seems the Enfeeble comparison is going on strong here, too.

Carry on, I'll make more popcorn.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Ok leys try this again:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why do you treat this differently to the roll to hit for PS?

I am not. Both options for enfeeble are valid applications of the rules. One leads to a silly result and so is discarded.

When you said this were you telling the truth yes or no?

At no point was I never not telling the truth. I was merely presenting an argument. Discussions of "telling the truth" is radically out of place here. You have no business discussing "lying", "honesty", or "truthfulness" in a YMDC thread. I have never misrepresented anything. If you want to take my argument to task then find a logical fallacy in it. For example, maybe you want to find a fallacy of consistency with what I am saying. But to keep driving at some issue of "telling the truth" betrays some fundamental disconnect on your part on what is actually taking place here. We are debating a topic. I am presenting an argument. Find a fallacy in the argument. Trying to label what I am saying as "lying" is abusive.

We have found fallacies, repeatedly. APpeals to authority, "sense", and strawman (you creating a fake argument, positing it as Fligns, and rubbishing it)

Actually my argument hinges on resolving the power acording to the rules, i.e. applying the 3D6 test.

Yours seems to hinge on making up that you can only wound with a to wound roll, and this bizarre nonsense that rolling 0 dice for to-wound is OK, but for to-hit breaks the game.

Oh, and you technically did misrepresent - your position changed between one telling and the next, meaning one of those was an untruth. You were caught on this, so instead of calling Flings posts "gibberish", and breakng rule 1, maybe you could step back, realise your error, and admit it? That would be "manning up".

Your spam and insults have been reported. Have fun.

et fini .