Right, here is a question for you all.

Does fear of the darkness require line of sight?

The wording on fear of the darkness is: "this power is used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon. Every enemy unit within 12 inches of the librarian not locked in an assault must take a morale check, with a -2 modifier to their leadership, or fall back. All normal modifiers and/or exceptions apply (ie, units that never fall back are immune to this power).

Now, the rulebook says: "Unless specified otherwise, phychic attacks are subject to the usual shooting rules, so a psyker must be able to see the target, all attacks must be directed against a single target unit etc..

Now, it seems pretty clear cut to me, fear of the darkness requires line of sight. However, nearly everyone I have ever played or spoken to about this says that fear doesn't require line of sight. Are they right, or is every person I have ever spoken to about this talking rubbish?

There doesn't seem to be anything that says it doesn't require line of sight...so, by the rulebook, it must require line of sight.

Also, does fury of the ancients require line of sight? It just says to pick a point on the table edge, and off the power goes...but there is nothing to say that you dont  need line of sight to that table edge first! Yet everyone sits their librarians behind rocks,  casting fury of the ancients loads of tims, dealing everyone and his mother d3 strength 5 hits, and causing a bunch of pinning checks.

Oh, and im a marine player who uses librarians quite a bit, so this would greatly benefit me if I was wrong about this.

The reason I ask is because these powers are absurd if they require no line of sight. I was playing a game against Imperial Guard, and a codicier and Tigrius practically won me the game! Tigurius scared off the entire guards flank with fear of the darkness, making them either run off the board, or run outside cover, so my assault cannons and heavy bolters could mow them down. The codicier, using fury, kept pinning the guard units. This meant he was unable to shoot my land speeders or dreads, and I killed his entire flank in 2 turns with 0 casualties. From there, I just kept lobbing whirlwinds shells and fury of the ancients at his other flank, safe from any return fire as I was behind a terrain piece, and there was nothing he could have ever done about it!

Are the powers really supposed to be as cheesy as this??

Long debated, without any clear answer.  The problem stems from the description of psychic powers in the rulebook, they say that they follow all the normal shooting rules unless 'otherwise stated'.  The side against needing line of sight suggest that the rules for FotD and FotA are that 'otherwise stated', and so the normal shooting rules do not apply as the powers have their own specific rules for how they work.  The side for needing line of sight suggest that 'otherwise stated' means the psychic power needs to specifically say that it does not need line of sight.

Although, I believe the recent Spanish FAQ says that Fury of the Ancients does not need line of sight, so the debate will continue for Fear of the Darkness.

I personally think that they need line of sight, but I let all the marine players in my area play the way they want because at this point I just want to finish a game.

If you saw a sign that said, "Unless otherwise stated, all fruit costs $1 each"

And then another, "If you would like a pineapple, please ask an employee and they will get one for you"

This would not mean to me that pineapples are free, but that's how some of these people are interpreting the psychic power rules for some reason.

- Oaka

Oaka, that is a false dilemma. If the sign says all fruit $1 and you have to ask for a pinapple it could just as easily mean a pinapple costs $2 or is free. The analogy fails because of this false dilemma.
The problem with English English is that for some odd reason, despite inventing the language, they don't have a clue how to actually speak it in a technical manner. So unless otherwise stated gets put in, which is a load of horse because anything modifying normal proceedure in anyway is necissarily stating otherwise.
My interpretation, both powers operate outside the normal rules of shooting, they do not follow the normal rules of shooting, because they are "otherwise". In lieu of real technical wordings from GW, this is the best you can get.

a  point on FOTA

if LOS was needed why does it specifiy that it isn't affected by terrain and only stopped if it contacts a friendly unit of a close combat?

the rules say pick a spot on the table edge, not a spot on the table edge you can see.

so no FOTA does not need LOS

 

i don't use fear but it appears to be an area effect weapon which also precludes it from needing LOS

Oh God. Here we go again.

Fury of the Ancients - Since this has been FAQed by the Spanish that it doesn't need line of sight, this is no longer a concern to us.

Fear of the Darkness - I really don't mind if this power does not need line of sight, as long as it follows consistently with using Tigurius.  There are only two interpretations I see as valid:

A:  FotD is a psychic power that targets every unit within 12".  This would mean that you need LOS to each of these units, but it also means that Tigurius will double that range to 24".

B:  FotD is a psychic power that targets the librarian and affects every unit within 12" of him.  This would mean that you do not need LOS to any of these units, but it also means that Tigurius will not augment the power in any way.

My only real concern is when the marine players mix n' match and try to get the best of both worlds, then I get irked by it.  Either way above seems perfectly reasonable to me, but it would be nice to know which way you played before the game, as always.

- Oaka

Hi folks, I don't post too often brcause spam is evil.

FotD " Every enemy unit within 12 inches of the librarian not locked in an assault must take a morale check" Thats the unless otherwise stated part, so FotD doesn't need LOS or a to hit roll. Its centered off the librarian and everyone within 12 is affected (not hit, but affected)

And as far as this Tigurius, his hood of hellfire states that it extends the range of all psychic abilites by double, not double the area of effect. So none of this 24" FotD everyone running off the board madness. For example a plasma cannon has a range of 36" and an area of effect of a small blast template.

My big thing about that stupid Spanish FAQ was that they followed RAW with every other group but marines. Marine Terminators can ALWAYS deep strike, even the ones taken as wargear even though RAW the ones bought as wargear would obviously NOT always deepstrike. But warriors can be instakilled by lascannons, Devilfish with Pathfinders can't scout, so pathfinders can't have the vehicle they are required to have in escalation, and a slew of other poor reads but marines get the "intent" behind theirs even though it was not worded that way. It wasn't internally consistant.

As for these 2 powers. I have no way of reading it. As worded they don't need LOS from my reading. But I don't know the intent behind the rules, nor do I know why anybody would intend to give deep striking units capable of so utterly crippling low ld armies. Even Marines have an issue with Fear if they don't have a Commander on the field. Fury seems like a giant "STFU" to people that use cover to hide their units effectively. Both powers could still be potent with requiring LOS, and both work as worded without it.

Developing tactics to avoid getting pounded by these powers hasn't been that difficult, just annoying.

Right, so fury definetly does not require line of sight, as its been FAQed by the spanish.

Thats one thing sorted out I guess...

Oaka...about Tigurius, I guess you could say I was one of those players who mix and match to get the best of both worlds- not because im a cheater, its because I think, RAW and intent is how it works...

For a start, the Librarian tactica on GW mentions that Tigurius doubles the fear of the darknesses range. As GW wrote the article, one would hope they knew what they were talking about (though of course you cant be sure with GW...).

Secondly, if you look at the wording for the hood of hellfire in the old space marine book, it says, under the hood of hellfires description, "the hood of hellfire works in the same way as a normal psychic hood. In addition it doubles the range of Tigurius smite psychic attack to 24 inches".

Now, yes, I know that there was only one power that space marine librarians could use at the time, so saying it doubles the range of all psychic powers would have been silly. My arguement is that, if they really wanted only smite to be affected by the hood of hellfire, they would not have changed the wording, to "all psychic powers". They would have just kept the wording the same! Because if you look, only smite has a defined range. Fury has unlimited range, might of heroes and veil of time are not range dependent, and vortex of doom just states "within 12 inches of the librarian"...exactly what fear of the darkness states! So, if we follow the idea that Tigurius cant double fear, he cant double vortex either. So only smite would be affected, and they would have kept the original wording from the old space marine book.

Thirdly, double fear of the darkness is the only reason to take Tigurius . And, if he cant double anything but smite, he is waaay overcosted. Take a normal Epistolary (115pts). Now, he already comes with a phychic hood and a force weapon. Give him a bolt pistol (up to 116pts). 15pts to make the force weapon master crafted (131pts) Frag and krak grenades are 3pts, so we up to 134pts.

Now, are you really telling me the ability to pick 2 psychic powers after deployment is worth 30pts?? Of course it isnt, you could buy your 2 phychic powers for 30pts anyway! Dont tell me anyone actually takes smite on Tigurius, and this effectively makes the hood of hellfire useless!

Forth, it would be stupid to have Tigurius requiring line of sight to use fear of the darkness, yet a normal codicier does not! Insanity!

Fifth, I believe RAW there is a case for having Tigurius' range doubled. The range is 12 inches, all around the librarian. When Tigurius uses it, he doubles the range, to 24 inches all around him.

Lastly, its going to be impossible to convince space marine spayers in my area that Tigurius does not have his range doubled. I believe he has his range doubled myself, and even if I didn't, there is no way they would ever listen to me. Its going to be impossible to convert them...can you imagine having Tigurius, and you drop pod him in, cast fear of the darkness, and your opponant is telling you its only got a 12 inch area of effect?? I would never get them to listen, and, not wanting to be at a disadvantage compared to everyone else, ill just keep playing the way 99% of the world does it.

Seriously, most people wouldn't even spot this kind of thing! I bet most just read it, think 12 inches is the range, doubled to 24 inches, and thats that. Its only inside dakkadakka that this is actually debated, its not going to affect the way the rest of the world plays it, even if you are right.

I suppose it wont be resolved until there is an FAQ..which, given how long it takes GW to produce FAQs, it might take some time...

Tiggy doesn't get to double the range because there is no range listed for Fear of the darkness, plain and simple.

FoTA doesn't need LOS because it extends to a table edge and tells you to apply the hits to each unit the line crosses until it hits the board edge, friendly unit or impassable terrain. This is much more specific and does not work in any way like shooting, and would therefore not follow the shooting rules. If it had a restriction on ending when the next available unit was out of sight then it would follow LOS. It is an overpowered power that's for sure.

Fear of the Dark affects models within a specified distance. This is more specific than shooting and would supercede the shooting rules. If GW wanted to have it only affect those in LOS they should just have put it in the power instead of describing an area of effect. Again poorly written if it is supposed to be LOS and again an overpowered power, but hey, this is Marinehammer 40k after all.

 

So...technically, could Tiggy use Fury and have it cross *2* tables (say, at a tournament)?

Cuz that would be the rOXXOr and I think Marines need the power boost with all that plasma out there.

Posted By Strangelooper on 06/29/2006 4:36 PM
So...technically, could Tiggy use Fury and have it cross *2* tables (say, at a tournament)?

Cuz that would be the rOXXOr and I think Marines need the power boost with all that plasma out there.

No, because it would stop at the table edge.......

I agree. Marines did not get enough of a boost in this edition.

I stand by my view that fears range is doubled. But the actual question I asked was does it require line of sight. There doesn't seem to be a common view on this one.

Just an interesting (though irrelevant) point:

If you believe that tiggy's fear isn't 24", you also must believe, for the same reasons, that mind war+augment still only goes to 18" (and in fact that augment has no effect at all, as no eldar farseer powers have a range).

"Marines did not get enough of a boost in this edition."

this is why you shouldn't do drugs! are you kidding!?!?

yeah, my guardsmen are laughing at them as they run off the board!

you don't think marines got enough of a boost, check out IG psykers!

that's suck!

For a start, the Librarian tactica on GW mentions that Tigurius doubles the fear of the darknesses range. As GW wrote the article, one would hope they knew what they were talking about (though of course you cant be sure with GW...).

Sorry, you mean the same GW that had a unit of warphounds in a Dark Eldar army without Wytches?
They don't even know they own rules, that much is obvious. You know how many glaring errors I see in the battle reports in a white dwarf? And these are the guys that made the rules. Those folks need an editor and a set system for points values.

That Spainish FAQ is a joke thanks to its own lack of internal consistancy. Read the rules as written for 2 other races but refuse to do so for the marines. If they figure the intent of the rules was obvious for one thing, why didn't they for the others?

Posted By mauleed on 06/30/2006 6:10 AM

Just an interesting (though irrelevant) point:

If you believe that tiggy's fear isn't 24", you also must believe, for the same reasons, that mind war+augment still only goes to 18" (and in fact that augment has no effect at all, as no eldar farseer powers have a range).

There's a correlation to rapid firing up to 12" being a "range" under the same circumstances too if the word range is not required, and instead a distance to do soemthing is given.

Mindawar: choose model XX distance away...

FotD: All units within 12 inches...

Rapid fire: May shoot twice up to 12 inches....

 

Posted By Oaka on 06/28/2006 11:38 AM

If you saw a sign that said," unless="" otherwise="" stated, all="" fruit costs="" $1="" each="">

And then another, "If you would like a pineapple, please ask an employee and they will get one for you"

This would not mean to me that pineapples are free, but that's how some of these people are interpreting the psychic power rules for some reason.

- Oaka

That not the same situation, the second sign makes no mention of cost and there for isn't stating a different price. however if "stated otherwise" means that you had to state when they don't apply, then in your example its not enough to say that apples are $2, you also have to say they are not $1.

Alarmingrick, while fear of the darkness hurts guard, it has no advantage against tyranids, or other fearless troops. This makes it highly situational.

That said, I wouldn't like to be on the recieving end of tiggys fear of the darkness if i played guard, so you have my sympathies.

Midnight, the white dwarf battle reports are irrelevant, its not what we were discussing. I hold the librarian tactica as proof that fear is doubled to 24 inch range. I am also mentioned the old space marine book, and the vortex of doom comparison. You have yet to provide any proof saying the way your reading "range" is right.

Besides, its blatently obvious to any reasonable person how the power should work! The range is 12 inches around the librarian. Tiggy doubles this to 24 inches. I believe if GW had not wanted fear of the darkness to be effective, they would have made an effort to put that in the hood of hellfires description!

Now, im sure we can agree on 2 things:

1) 99% of the world is playing that tiggy does indeed double the range.
2) The wording supporting either arguement is on shaky ground at best, in which case some common sense should be applied, and intent looked at (I know they say dont do this on the dakka forums, but I bet you cant find anything in the rulebook to support this). The intent is clearly that tiggy doubles the range to 24 inches.

No one is doubting the intent. But intent isn't really relevant.

We're discussing the actual rules, not the intended ones.

Posted By burnthexenos on 06/30/2006 1:20 PM

Was this a serious response in a rules discussion? I'll assume that it was, for the sake of argument.

Besides, its blatently obvious to any reasonable person how the power should work!

Apparently not. If it was so obvious, there would not be a debate.

The range is 12 inches around the librarian. Tiggy doubles this to 24 inches.

And what is the range of a frag missile?  48", or a 2" circle?
The 12" area of effect is just that, a 12" area of effect, not a range. Range is a defined game term and Fear does not include it in its description.

Now, im sure we can agree on 2 things:

1) 99% of the world is playing that tiggy does indeed double the range.

Count me in the "1%". How is it that you have collected verified accounts of so many people's opinions?
I field marines, and if I ever did run Tiggy, I guarantee you that I would never double his Fear range. If for no other reason than that I'm not 100% sure that its legal.

(Until FAQed, that is. )

2) The wording supporting either arguement is on shaky ground at best,

Fair enough. In such a situation, the one making the action should take the least advantageous one. Other wise, you might be gaining an unfair advantage. A good sportsman will err on the side of caution.

in which case some common sense should be applied,

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -Albert Einstein
My idea of common sense obviously disagrees with yours. Who's should we follow?

and intent looked at

Who are you to claim that you know the designers intent? Designers intent can rarely be verified, hence its uselessness in most situations. WD battle reports and internet tactica are not proof of designers intent. How many of them are actually produced by the designer in question?

(I know they say dont do this on the dakka forums, but I bet you cant find anything in the rulebook to support this).

Umm, the absense of its inclusion in the BGB, Codices, and FAQs is clearly support enough that it has no place in a rules discussion. Or are you saying that we can include any little snippet of an idea simply because we think it should be applied even though it is nowhere to be found in the official printed material?

The intent is clearly that tiggy doubles the range to 24 inches.

You're right, its clear. Crystal. Wow, thank heavens the designers have finally told us what their intent was.

My point was that the Librarian Tactica is written and edited by the same people that don't know the rules well enough to field a legal army in a battle report. It's not in or part of the codex, nor it is an official FAQ on their English website.

Intention is fine and dandy, but they also intended to have nids in synapse be immune to instakill from weapon strength and by RAW that isn't correct. At least some people believe that is the intention. Since GW has not released an FAQ for a year now and has instead focused more on screwing the retailers that made them survive in the US, we are left wondering.

As written "Fear" targets the Librarian. Range could be considered "self" in which case doubling of self is, well, weird. The 12" AoE around him is not the range of the power, just the area of effect. The hood doubles the range, not the area of effect. Or does Tiggy get to put down a 3" template for vortex? It can be argued to be the same thing, since it is essentially a blast area around him, not range. He's always the target. It could have said "Make a psychic test. target all units within 12" with a psychic power that causes them to..."

GW needs to grasp the concept of making explanations for their wording more common.
"This is how LOS works." Then put in how it works with each example of common situations. Vehicles, monsterous creatures, infantry, skimmers, close combats, and how they all interact. Instead we get the rules in 4 different places and they can be confusing and some people would argue they contradict themselves. These powers have the same issue. You can see how they intended to have it happen, but they contradict known rules. This is the reason we have "You Make the Call"

You can play Hood of Hellfire however you want right now.

If you are touting the Librarian tactica as canon for rules discussion, have you fully ignored this line in the Powers section?

Fury of the Ancients. This power is particularly useful at long range, as it can go all the way across the board (within line-of-sight, of course).


http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/spacemarines/gaming/tactica_librarian/powers.htm

Well, considering that a FAQ trumps an article on a website, once the new FAQ hits the English sites, that page will be worthless.

Posted By lord_sutekh on 06/30/2006 3:24 PM
Well, considering that a FAQ trumps an article on a website, once the new FAQ hits the English sites, that page will be worthless.

I think you missed the point he was making. People were trying to use the article for no LOS. Here the poster was pointing out, like elsewhere, people don't read correctly and miss a little bit of pertinent info.

His first line says "If you are ....."

 

Mauleed, you have to look at intent in the absense of a crystal clear rule. Otherwise, how would we play the game? It would end up with one player saying the range is doubled, and another saying it isnt.

Moz, the reason I am ignoring that line is because it has been FAQed by the spanish. This does not, however, make the description for fear of the darkness worthless.

Blueloki, the range of a frag missile is 48 inches, with a small blast marker area of effect.

The range of tigurius fear is not specified, therefore we have to use the only range we are actualyl given, which is 12 inches, doubled to 24 inches.

As ive said before, as Tiggy could only use the hood of hellfire to double his "smite" psychic power, its very unlikely GW would have changed the wording to "all" psychic powers, expecially as like like copying and pasting stuff from old codexes.

And no, I dont have to take the least advantageous interpretation. Theer is NOTHING in the rulebook that supports this.

Yes, I might be gaining an unfair advantage. But, if I were to take the least advantageous interpretation, I may also be denying myself a completely legal advatage, making the game unfair for me. It can be argued both ways.

I can guarantee you that when I run Tiggy, his range is 24 inches for fear of the darkness, and I do that with a clear conscience, and I can sleep at night.

And I dont care what Einstein said. My view of common sense is  better than yours. Its obvious what the damn intent was, or the wording would not have been changed.

Midnight, if you ever played me, synapse nids would be immune to instant kill from weapons of double or more strength no matter what. Just look at it guys! A Krak Missile wont kill a tyranid warrior, but crank the strength up one more notch, and a lascannon tears him to bits??

I know GW needs to make their rules clearer. But we have what we have, and must make the best of it, rather than trying to abuse every little loophole.

To all of you...its clear to me how the power works! By RAW, and intent, the "range" of tiggys fear is 24 inches.

Someone said this in the devilfish thread...if you were a new player, having just read the rulebook and the codex, with no outside influence from rules lawyers ..ahem, sorry, "members of dakkadakka", woudl you consider tiggy to double the range of fear or not?

You all know what you would think. You would think that tiggy doubled it to 24 inches. None of this crap about the range been "self"  and so the range isnt doubled!

Many of us contend that if they wanted Tiggy's fear to be 24", they would have written it in a way that made that clear. You're right though that the rulebook doesn't demand you take the least advantageous position in an unclear situation, that's a sportsmanship thing - a topic that is arguably beyond the scope of the rulebook and possibly beyond the scope of your game.

I dropped the line in from the Librarian tactica to show just this: you are pulling straws from every possible area to grab at the greatest advantage, even when taking all of the information from one of your sources would create a disadvantage elsewhere that you won't accept. They have a name for behavior like this, I'll let you figure that out.

Posted by burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 10:54 AM
Mauleed, you have to look at intent in the absense of a crystal clear rule.

The designer's intent or your opinion on what the designer's intent is? Because unless the designer tells you "This is what I intended" all that you have is YOUR opinion on what the rule should read, not the designer's intent.

I'm of the opinion that Pathfinders get a free move in their devilfish that can always deploy with them even in escalation thanks to scout. I also believe Nids are immune to lascannon instakills, Marine Commanders can take Terminator armor and deep strike no matter what, and Those 2 powers work in nasty ways. Thing is, I believe it because it makes sense and I don't care if it isn't RAW. However, I do it to all armies to not screw my opponent and give them the best possible chance. Monoliths aren't immune to Powerfists, AP1 doesn't cut through a skimmer if it equals their armor value as well. I try to be nice. However, when someone argues that it is clear that something is some way even though RAW do not support them, I indicate otherwise.

That devilfish debate is a prime example. I can see they intended to make the D-fish a transport. But I am frustrated because they didn't do a consistant job with it. Needing almost no time to update a codex they still screwed it up. Putting a symbol next to the Devilfish caused the whole problem.

My point here is this: GW needs to learn how to write intent into their stuff. Examples of how stuff works is the best way to do it. Considering they can't even get it right in their own battle reports and articles, I get more angry every time I see them produce stuff and not fix what they had prior to that.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 9:54 AM
And I dont care what Einstein said.

Hence the low test scores American children today.

My view of common sense is better than yours.

OMFG!!!! That is the single funniest thing that I have ever see typed! Even more so that Kid Kyoto's previews (although, not by much)! Definitely quote-worthy.

You don't really believe that, do you? If so, I pity you. I truely do. So sad.

Its obvious what the damn intent was, or the wording would not have been changed.

[sarcasm]Yes, obvious. So obvious that there is no disagreement. Absolutely none, hence the absence of any sort of debate on the subject. [/sarcasm]

Midnight, I agree with your attitude to the game. I too agree about the termie armour, and the nid instantkills.

Yes, perhaps (and notice, I only said perhaps) the RAW doesn't fully support me. But, it doesn't fully support them either.

Thank god games are played outside the dakka forum, wheer common sense can be used.

That said, is common sense actually common?? It makes me think...

Blueloki, there is only disagreement because of idiots like yourself reading something into the rules that isnt there!

Ghaz, im fairly sure, using a little thought, we can all realise what the designers intent was.

No one has answered my question yet: If they only wanted smite to be affected, why didn't they just use the words from the original codex??

Oh no.
I have been insulted by an anonymous intrehnet non-entity.
You have defeated me with your witty yet valourous barb.
I am wounded beyond comprehension.
I die.


[from the afterlife]
How am I the one reading something into the rules when you are the only one claiming that you know the designer's intent and attempting to apply it to a rules argument?

You don't know what the designer's intent is/was, and even if you did you would have no way to prove it. The only thing that we DO have is what is actually literally written, insane or logical. Learn to deal with it and keep your version of 'common sense' and 'designer's intent' confined to your local house rules, thats the only place where they carry any weight.

Unless you happen to be one of the designers, you have no business claiming that you know the designer's intent. You defeat your own argument the moment you claim that you do.

"Thank god games are played outside the dakka forum, wheer common sense can be used."
EXACTLY!
This is not an actual game, this is YMDC where RAW is God and Dakkites are His prophets. Here, we determine what the rules literally say and then we individually determine how they should be played within our local groups.

So calm down, quit with the insults, and play like you've got a pair! (oh crap, wrong game...)
[/from the afterlife]

I know the designers intent through use of common sense. Common sense dictates that fears range is doubled.

You still have not answered my question, so ill write it in capital letters: IF THEY ONLY WANTED SMITE TO BE AFFECTED, WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE WORDING TO "ALL" PSYCHIC POWERS???

Oh, and you cant be in the afterlife, as the afterlife, heaven, hell, and god do not exist.

You have no business claiming you know the designers intent either. By saying the rule is that fears range is not doubled, you are assuming that was the designers intent. When you roll to hit with your space marine, you are making the assumption it was the designers intent that marines were BS4, and it wasnt just a misprint.

Oh, and after your sarcastic remarks about me insulting you, you proceded  to say this:

"so calm down, quit with the insults, and play like you've got a pair".

Pots and kettles mate...

Loki was making a Warmachine pg5 reference, not much of a jab at you.

While I applaud your common sense and it's ability to process the intricate workings of an arcane relic hood and the effect that it does and does not have on the psychic powers of a fictional character wearing it some thousands of years into the future. I will stick with the rules.

And I still contend you are just trying to weasel every possible advantage while ignoring any disadvantage from an unclear set of rules, an unofficial foregin language FAQ, and a game guide on the english website.

Should I put that in caps to help you understand?

But..sticking with the rules is saying that the range of fear of the darkness is 24 inches! Th range is 12 inches around the librarian, which is doubled to 24 inches around the librarian.

Im not trying to weasel every possible advantage. Fury of the ancients has been FAQed. I have the wording from the old codex: space marines, a Librarian tactica on GWs website, and that the range is 12 inches around the librarian. You have yet  to provide a shred of evidence to back up your point.

Hmm, and while you mention putting your post in caps, i notice you didn't answer my question, also in caps.

This is because you cannot think of a possible explanation, and if you admitted that it would follow on that the designers intent was that fear of the darkness is doubled to a 24 inch range. As GW like to copy and paste stuff from old codexes, if you cant provide evidence to explain why they did this, I hold this as clear RAW to say that the hood of hellfire doubles the range of fear of the darkness.

I await some evidence from you that says the contrary.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 3:17 PM
I know the designers intent through use of common sense. Common sense dictates that fears range is doubled.

No, you assume that you have determined the designers intent through deductive logic based on your own biased ideas. Even if your biased ideas 100% correct, and even if your deductive logic was spot on, your 'knowledge' of designer's intent would still be nothing more than an assumption for the simple fact that the designer has not told you what his intent really was.

You still have not answered my question, so ill write it in capital letters: IF THEY ONLY WANTED SMITE TO BE AFFECTED, WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE WORDING TO "ALL" PSYCHIC POWERS???

Consistency is not one of GW's strong points.

Oh, and you cant be in the afterlife, as the afterlife, heaven, hell, and god do not exist.

Neither does common sense. What you claim as 'common sense' is nothing more that an attempt to force you own biased ideas onto another through the false claim that they are supported by the plurality. They are not, and you have no proof to the contrary.

You have no business claiming you know the designers intent either. By saying the rule is that fears range is not doubled, you are assuming that was the designers intent. When you roll to hit with your space marine, you are making the assumption it was the designers intent that marines were BS4, and it wasnt just a misprint.

I, under no circumstances, have ever claimed that I know the designers intent. You misunderstand. I believe that Fear's range IS doubled. However, there is no explicit 'range' characteristic within Fear's description, hence its range remains 0 (or infinity). 0*2=0. You are making an assumption that Fear's range is equal to that of its area of effect. That is an assumption, nothing more, nothing less.

Pots and kettles mate...

Sorry for the confusion, nothing personal. That was indeed a WM reference (it helps if you read the entire line instead of picking bits out of context). Just a failed attempt to add a bit o' levity to the situation. Some of you newer posters take what we say here much too personally.

Its just an internet forum.

Im not biased! Im using a little bit of common sense.

You say consistancy is not one of GWs strong points? Yet copying and pasting text from other codexes is!

And you have destroyed your own arguement by saying that. GW is not consistant. They were not consistant defining "range". The inconsistancy interpretations can be used for any rule in the game. "well, as consistancy is not one of Gws strong points", all the new stuff in the tau empire codex is illegal".

Your been a fool. You dont know the rules properly.

Yea, the range could be 0x2=0. It could also be 10x10= 100, or 500x500= 250000...or even...12x2= 24 inches.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 4:51 PM
Your been a fool. You dont know the rules properly.

Your counter-argument has left me stunned. You, of course, are correct and all other must kneel before Zod.

You continue to rely upon 'common sense', and that is why you fail. Tell me, how many people does it take to agree with an idea in order for it to become 'common sense'? Seriously, I'm curious.

Yea, the range could be 0x2=0. It could also be 10x10= 100, or 500x500= 250000...or even...12x2= 24 inches.

Yes, that is my point. Since it has no explicitly defined 'range', by declaring that any other part of its rules are effected which are not defined explicitly as 'range', you are making an assumption. Not only that, but you are making an assumption that provides yourself with an advantage that has the possibility of being illegal.

In fact, as range aint defined, I think ill say fears range is 40 inches, doubled to 80 inches..yea!

No, of course this is not the case. Its 12 inches, doubled to 24.

Woohoo, who reincarnated this thread, it's been dead for near a week!

I'll reiterate what I said before, I really don't care if Tiggy actually does double the range of FotD to 24", but all I am saying is that if he does, then it means the psychic power would have a range of 12", which means it targets every unit within 12", which means it needs LOS to each unit it targets.  When the rulebook says that all psychic powers follow the normal rules for shooting, that is what that means to me.

But every marine player I have ever met seems to think that all their psychic powers follow all the rules beneficial to them, and ignore all the rules that are disadvantageous to them.  And that is what I really can't stand.

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

- Oaka

"I'll reiterate what I said before, I really don't care if Tiggy actually does double the range of FotD to 24", but all I am saying is that if he does, then it means the psychic power would have a range of 12", which means it targets every unit within 12", which means it needs LOS to each unit it targets. When the rulebook says that all psychic powers follow the normal rules for shooting, that is what that means to me."


since i feel lazy tonight, what he said.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 2:33 PM
Ghaz, im fairly sure, using a little thought, we can all realise what the designers intent was.

Unless you're psychic then no, you have no idea that the designer's intent was anything other than what was written in the first place and I for one don't believe in psychics.

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 5:43 PM

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

I tried that on page 2.  It just seems to anger the wild burnthexenos when you tell him he's selectively picking only advantages from any and every possible source.

Posted By Moz on 07/06/2006 7:39 AM

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 5:43 PM

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

I tried that on page 2.  It just seems to anger the wild burnthexenos when you tell him he's selectively picking only advantages from any and every possible source.

burnthexenos' response was:

"And no, I dont have to take the least advantageous interpretation. Theer is NOTHING in the rulebook that supports this.

Yes, I might be gaining an unfair advantage. But, if I were to take the least advantageous interpretation, I may also be denying myself a completely legal advatage, making the game unfair for me. It can be argued both ways."

He's just a poor sport and will obviously continue to take the interpretation that best suits him, even if it is clear that he is wrong since he would be denying himself an advantage.

Oaka, as I have actually pointed out, the reason I dont accept their interpretation of fury of the ancients, is because it has been FAQed by the spanish.

Actually Ghaz, I do have proof that the intent was to have tiggy double the range. They changed the wording from the old space marine book to include "all" psychic powers. As fear is the only other power apart from smite and vortex of doom which can be affected (and vortex cant be affected if we follow your line of reasoning, as it uses a blast template, and has the same wording as fear), the only reason they have changed the wording is to allow fears range to be doubled. No other explanation. I can also point to the librarian tactica. Now, YOU give me some proof that the intent WASN'T to have fears range doubled, ive given my evidence.

Snooggums, you have ignored the other part of what I said. If I take the least advantageous interpretation I MAY (not "will") be unfairly handicapping myself, and thus giving my opponant an unfair advantage. Of course, if I take the most advantageous interpretation, I MAY (but yet again, not "will") be giving myself an unfair advantage.

Either way you look at it, one side may benefit unfairly, while one loses out. And, in the case of choosing whether me or my opponant loses out, ill go for the WAAC version. We will take the interpretation that best benefits ME!!!

"If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

This is a quote directly from the stickied thread, "How to have an Intelligent Rules", which contains a lot of useful information that may have helped your argument if you had bothered to read it.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 1:50 PM
We will take the interpretation that best benefits ME!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the definition of poor sportsmanship.

"Oaka, as I have actually pointed out, the reason I dont accept their interpretation of fury of the ancients, is because it has been FAQed by the spanish."

"I can also point to the librarian tactica."

You're obviously missing the point we are trying to make that you can't pick which parts of GW literature you like for this argument and ignore the others.  If it is true that the librarian tactica is incorrect on one thing, that casts doubt on everything else it makes a ruling on.

In a court of law, witnesses are dismissed if it is proven that they are known to lie in a similar context.  It follows, then, why those of us who do reject the librarian tactica choose to do so.

I honestly don't know why you find a 'Doesn't require LOS' or 'Tiggy doubles range' choice unreasonable.  Either interpretation will decimate certain armies or, at the least, earn more than its fair share of points back against most armies.  When you combine the two, it tends to get a little bit out of hand unless you are facing another marine army, and we all know how much fun those games tend to be.

- Oaka (who loves facing a droppoding Tiggy with a 24" Fear that doesn't require LOS with his Kroot, seriously, I love unpacking 100+ models and then putting them back into my case ten minutes later)

Phausi, im going to call upon my opponant to be ethical, and take the least advantageous interpretation for him. Otherwise, he may get an unfair advantage...

Seriously, why is it the person taking the action who has to be the ethical one? And dont just say "because its ethical", actually state a reason why. It certainly isnt supported in the codexes or rulebook.

Blue Loki, poor sportsmanship would be my opponant getting an unfair advantage for refusing to let Tiggy double the range.

Oaka, the reason I wont accept that it does require line of sight, is because no where says either way! The rulebook says to do one way, but fears description says to do another. Which one overides which?

And of course, having tiggys fear fequire line of sight, while a normal librarians does not, is just plain silly.

And of course im a marine player, and we marine players always whinge, whine, and moan until we get what we want. And it works too- look at the assault cannon!

But I would add that this "problem" isnt solely limited to marine players.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:31 PM
Phausi, im going to call upon my opponant to be ethical, and take the least advantageous interpretation for him. Otherwise, he may get an unfair advantage...

Seriously, why is it the person taking the action who has to be the ethical one? And dont just say "because its ethical", actually state a reason why. It certainly isnt supported in the codexes or rulebook.

Because the ethics are the responsibility of the person taking the action. The person who kicks the baby is responsible for his actions the same way a person in the game is responsible for deciding which interpretation he plays is ethical. This gets muddied when deciding who is taking an action but in general, if you are doing something that has an effect, you are the one responsible for taking the less advantageous approach. If you take two different sources of info that contradict each other but then use the parts of each that only benefit you, you are being unethical.

Is anyone else getting the feeling that burnthexenos is just pulling a strawman for the MEQ kiddy stereotype? If so, bravo you suckered us in and we are taking you seriously now. If not... I pity your gaming buddies.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:31 PM
Blue Loki, poor sportsmanship would be my opponant getting an unfair advantage for refusing to let Tiggy double the range.

 

Absolutely, just like its unsportsmanlike for a Ref to prevent a striker from scoring while he is offsides, just as it is illegal to attempt to keep a bullet from hitting your head, or to not want to be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike, or to try and prevent a Rapist from teaching you a new kind of love.

The onus of proving the legality of an action before the action takes place is on the one taking the action. It is not your opponent's responsibility to make the decision of legality here, it's all on you. If you are not 100% sure that the action is legal, then you cannot take it and remain a good sportsman (unless, of course, your opponent tells you that its OK to do so). Feel free to actually take the action, RAW cannot physically restrain you, but don't expect a positive result afterward.

And what is this business about proving sportsmanship through RAW? Are you saying that you can do whatever you want because the BGB doesn't tell you that you can't? Don't forget that the BGB doesn't say its illegal to pelt your opponent with 3rd edition metal carnifexes either...

Snooggums, you have pulled that one out of your ass. It could be said that as I kicked the baby, I was responsible for my actions, but it could also be said that it was the parents fault for neglecting their baby in the first place, and putting the baby in a poistion where it could be hurt.

Im not been unethical. If you refuse to let me use 24 inch fear of the darkness, you are cheating, simple as that.

Moz, I said that bit about how all space marine players whine with alot of sarcasm. If you couldn't pick up on that, well, its not my problem!

Blue Loki, the things you describe, such as the footballer been offside, are perfectly sportsmanlike, because its in the rules. What would be unsportsmanlike, is if the ref knowingly prevented that striker from scoring even though he was onside.

The rules support 24 inch fear. Its unsportsmanlike to say that 24 inch fear cant be used.

I have proved that my actions are legal. I have used the old space marine codex, the librarian tactica, and the fact that the range is 12 inches around the librarian, doubled to 24 inches. I have proved my case beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, its up to you to disprove this.

Juts like I point to BS4 to say my marine hits on 3+. If you want my marine to now hit on 5+, you have to prove that this is supported by the rules. Which of course, it is not.

Oh, and the rules system is permissable, so unless the rulebook specifically says you can pelt your opponant with 3rd edition metal carnifexes, you cant.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 3:47 PM
Snooggums, you have pulled that one out of your ass. It could be said that as I kicked the baby, I was responsible for my actions, but it could also be said that it was the parents fault for neglecting their baby in the first place, and putting the baby in a poistion where it could be hurt.

 

That is the most arrogant self serving rationalization I have seen in years.

"It's your fault you didn't stopme from kicking your baby."

Snooggums, while it may seem funny, if we take it back to 40k rules, it is partly their fault. If they had not put their baby near me, I wouldn't ever have been able to kick it, therefore, its their fault. Its simple logic.

I never said they provided the baby, or that they asked you to kick it. That is your mind thinking things that aren't there, kind of like you ethics justification.

Snooggums, in order for a baby to be there to begin with, they would have had to provide the baby- it didn't just fall from outer space!

Phausi, can you point me to a rulebook page that says unethical people are jerks. I for one, have my own system...

Premise 1: People that cheat are jerks
Premise 2: Phausi has stated that tiggy cant double fear of the darkness, therefore is cheating
Conclusion 1: Phausi is a jerk.

As as you have started with the ad hominum attacks, it must be that you are conceding the point to me.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 4:48 PM
Snooggums, in order for a baby to be there to begin with, they would have had to provide the baby- it didn't just fall from outer space!

Phausi, can you point me to a rulebook page that says unethical people are jerks. I for one, have my own system...

Premise 1: People that cheat are jerks
Premise 2: Phausi has stated that tiggy cant double fear of the darkness, therefore is cheating
Conclusion 1: Phausi is a jerk.

As as you have started with the ad hominum attacks, it must be that you are conceding the point to me.

I never once said you can't double FotD. In fact, I never gave my opinion one way or the other. I concede nothing, as I was never trying to make a point

As you did not support my viewpoint, it was only reasonable of me to think you were a cheater, who said that tiggy only has a 12 inch fear of the darkness range.

As the space marines say: There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone that will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

Oh, the humanity.
The lines of communication have broken down. (were they ever really there?)

And now the marines are actually talking to him.
The bloody marines.
The bloody, imaginary, plastic marines.
As you did not support my viewpoint - what a statement, wow. Simply wow.
Cheater, huh? Wow, simply wow.
Killed this debate is.
!

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 5:04 PM
In which case, it is the owners fault for letting me steal their baby in the first place.

What perfect logic! Finally, a way around those pesky robbery laws.

Posted by burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:50 PM
Actually Ghaz, I do have proof that the intent was to have tiggy double the range.

No, you do not. All you have is your opinion that it was their intent. Once again, the one and only way you can know somebody's 'intent' is if they tell you. Did Andy Hoare tell you that was his intent? No. Therefore you do NOT know what the intent was, period.

Blue loki, it actually says this in the rulebook, page 71. "there can be no bystanders..etc etc..". Check it if you want. My space marines did not just start talking to me. And please refrain from the personal attacks and insults.

Phausi, my arguement is no more rediculous that saying that Tiggy doesn't get a 24 inch fear of the darkness. In a way though, it is their fault. If they took more care of their baby, it wouldn't have been stolen.

Ghaz, please provide some evidence to show that your viewpoint is correct. I have provided some evidence to support my arguement. As I have proved my arguement, it is now up to you to disprove it. You wont find anything in the rulebook/codexes to say that fear of the darkness isnt 24 inches, and ive found enough evidence to prove that it is.

Saying that you have proven an argument and proving an argument, are very different things.

You have decided based on nothing but opinion and non-rules sources (GW tactica article) that the area of effect of Fear is the same as the 'Range'. You have proven absolutely nothing, but that in a grey area you will kick and scream until you get the greatest advantage possible. You may have been using Sarcasm when you made the Space Marines whiner joke, but its so applicable to the way you are acting that I think it might be you who missed the point.

If 40k did not define a Range stat and instead said for instance Bolter: S4, AP5 may shoot at targets up to 24" away. Then you might have a point in saying any measure of distance can be considered to be 'range' and a 'range' doubling effect would then apply to that measurement. As it stands though, 'Range' is a crystal clear defined term that is applied to specific Weapons and Powers. If an item doubles the Range, it effects only this stat because the rule is directly referencing a proper term. Any speculation on what the effect would be on the Area of effect or the distance a power may reach to a model is just pure speculation on your part.

Again, if they wanted it to double the range of fear, they would have given fear a 'Range' (proper term) to double.

Actually mox, I could argue the area of effect of a bolter was 24 inches. As the marine has a 360 degree line of sight, he can shoot in a circle of 24 inch range, from the point he is standing. Same theory applies with Tigurius.

There, proved beyond doubt.

I have the old wording, and the librarian tactica to back me up, and you have NOTHING. Yes, hear it again...NOTHING!! Not an iota of proof has been provided by you!!

Its not a grey area, its crystal clear. Fear of the darkness is 24 inches when using Tigurius.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 12:10 PM
And please refrain from the personal attacks and insults.

Geez, talk about getting bent out of shape.
Ehrm, cough, sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.
How about we start this argument again from the top?
You should provide us with a premis conclusion format argument and we'll break it down.

I wasn't talking to you.
Don't assume everything is about you.
I was simply sending a message (again, not to you).
Oh my, how this thread has degenerated.
Toodle-oo. Were I a poet, I'd write a Haiku.

But, I'm not.
Oh, well.
Yikes, this was a pointless post!

 

Iorek, your post should be considered spam. I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

Blue Loki, it sure looked like you were talking to me..

But your obviously an idiot, who cant see that my way of playing is the only way..

BGB pg 28:
Every Weapon has a profile which consists of several elements:
Bolter - Range 24" - Strength 4 - AP5 - Rapidfire

The diagram shows that the Range stat is the Maximum range of the weapon, which it then tells us is always measured in inches.  With me still? (I don't expect you to be, too busy fussing and kicking your feet I'd wager).  At any rate, Range is defined.

Fear of the Darkness makes zip zilch zero, not one iota, mention of Range in its profile. If you are going to extend Fear of the Darkness, then you must prove that 'Every enemy unit within 12" of the Librarian' is the same thing as Range as defined in the BGB. Good luck with that.

Get your argument together in a simple format, as stated earlier and lets take a look at it.
Even a simple list of the relevant rules would be something.
This will allow everyone to take a true look at it and make sure there are no holes in it.

Lay it all out clearly with page numbers please.
And make sure that you are only using current printed materials.
In case you were not aware, old codexes and rulebooks which have been overwritten have no weight in this arena.
Don't bother to bring them up, they will immediately be dissmissed.

Consider your reference to the old SM codex.
Old printings, like that one, have absolutely no bearing on the current rules.
Clean your bookshelf off and put them in storage.
Keep them for nostalgia if you want, but know that they have no bearing on the current game.

Posted" by="" burnthexenos="" on="" 07/07/2006="" 1:48="" pm="">
Iorek, your post should be considered spam. I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

Yeah, but it felt good.   Usually I try to be polite to the other posters, but you're really inspiring me to be obnoxious.  I think you've even surpassed the Captain and BloodyT as far as that goes.

Obviously, the burninator cannot take a joke.
The world would be a much nicer place if more people would take themselves less seriously.

Reality is bad enough that we need not make it worse.
U know what? I too began to think of Popeye and BT, but then I realized something....
Levity does not entirely escape those guys, so you really couldn't be one of them....
Even though I originally thought that you were.
So, are you gonna post the structured argument or not?

Blue Loki, the old space marine book is useful for been able to prove an intent arguement, which Ghaz insists I do not have. AS we know, GW like copying and pasting stuff from old coodexes, so the fact that they actually changed the wording, to me, is proof of intent (and nothing more) that fear of the darkness is meant to be 24 inches.

So, breaking down my arguement again...

The Librarian Tactica on GWs website, tells us that Tiggy can use fear of the darkness with double range. Dont start on abotu fury, as thats been FAQed by the spanish.

The old space marine boko is proof of intent, Tigurius is on page 38. Notice the wording of the hood of hellfire. Now compare it to the currect wording (new space marine book, page 49). Notice the difference? This is surely proof of INTENT.

The range of a boltgun is 24 inches. It can also be argued that the area of effect of a boltgun is 24 inches, from all around where the model stands. Same effect with tiggy. If he truely had range "0", the power would never actually be able to affect anything at all.

If you refuse to awknowledge that fears range is doubled, you must also, for the same reasons, refuse to believe the vortex of dooms range is doubled. The wording is the same, except vortex uses a blast template. Refer back to point 2 as to why this cannot possibly be the intent.

Now, although that isnt a watertight arguement by any means, I have yet to see the ones opposing me put up any evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on me, and I have found some proof (not loads, but some). Now, as I have proved my case, its time for you to prove that yours has merit. Where does it say that "range" is ONLY the maximum range of say, a boltgun. Why can't it apply to psychic powers aswell? You may argue, that yes it can, pointing to smite as an example. My arguement for this is that, as smite clearly does require line of sight, a suitable range was put in to indicate this. This is not mentioned in fear of the darkness, however, this could be just due to the fact that the designers did not want it to require line of sight (however, we have no proof of that, and yes, this is very, very shaky ground).

It seems we have 4 conclusions we can possibly draw...

1) Tiggy doesn't require line of sight for fear, and neither does any other librarian, however, this can only be a maximum of 12 inches.
2) Tiggy requires line of sight for fear, however, he can double the range. A normal librarian also requires line of sight.
3) Tiggy, and all other librarians, dont require line of sight for fear, and Tiggy can double the range of fear to 24 inches.
4) Tiggy, and all other librarians, require line of sight for fear, and this can only ever be a maximum of 12 inches.

I woudl like each of you argueing with me to state which one you are arguing for, 1,2,3 or 4. Then I know exactly what viewpoint you have, and can argue against you. Most have just said that my view is wrong, while not saying which viewpoint they believe in.

Personally, I find 4 to be ludicrous, it would make the power not very good at all, and if they required line of sight, there may well be a range type characteristic. I also dont believe in 1, as ive made it clear that designers intent seems to point the other way (and we play games outside the dakka forum, so like it or not, intent plays a part). I can see an arguement for 2, as this backs up the new wording in the hood of hellfire, and also seems to back up the rulebook, which says that you require line of sight unless otherwise stated. The one I am arguing for also seems to have equal merit, both backing up the wording in the new hood of hellfire, and there is a case to be made that it is "otherwise stated", by saying that it affects every unit within 12/24 inches of the librarian.

I believe that 3 is the correct version, both in the designers intent, and supported by the rules. I believe 1 and 4 are plain cheating. I can see an arguement for 2 however, and I would be prepared to dice off for our seperate interpretations with my opponant.

Which one do you lot think?

Iorek, regarles of whether I annoy you or not, try to remain polite. This is a rules discussion, not a  place to vent your rage at other posters.

So, this from a guy who constantly calls people idiot?
Usually, one shouldn't thow stones if they live in a glass house.
Careful, people may begin to simply ignore your posts.
Keep up the good work though, at least we are entertained.

I don't think you are doing a very good job of promoting your side of the argument.
That could just be, but you are coming off as a bit inconsequential.

Hardly a lock, maybe Blue Loki told to refrain from the personal insults and remain focused on the rules.

You know what burninator. I'd let you double the range. However, since nowhere is an actual range stated, I'd say he's casting it on himself. Just like casting Veil of Time or one of the other self spells. Therefore, your doubled range is still double self. And with two heaping helpings of self you reach selfish. Which is about 1 helping short of being a troll. Which is what you seem to be doing by bringing up this stupid thread again. I suggest you go see your shrink so he can let you read more from Codex: Tubgirl. See, I think her intent was actually for you to be the catcher. If you ask nice maybe she'll even double her range for ya.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 2:51 PM
Listen here [edited],

Thank you for that. All comments are appreciated

ive yet to see any proof from your side of the arguement...

Define side?

you didn't even say which rules interpretation you support!

You're right, I didn't.

At least make an effort,

I've made an effort in trying to educate you on how to actually form an argument, but that was a while ago.
Lately it just hasn't been in me...

or people WILL begin to ignore you.

Eh... not my concern...

Oh, ive done a fine job of presenting my side.

Which is why this thread is only one page long.

You have yet to present any of yours though...maybe you dont actually have an arguement?

You are correct. I don't. Why? Because I'm not actually trying to argue either side. I've simply let you know why your argument holds little water, and that some of your ideas do not actually hold any rules weight in their current incarnation.

The only reason I posted in the first place was to let you know that intent and 'common sense' have no place in a rules argument. And then I attempted to show you why. Simple as pie.

When you failed to acknowledge that simple fact, the discussion degenerated.

I invited you to put forth a properly structured argument, and again the lines of communication broke down.

I'm bored now. I relent. Have a good evening and a happy weekend.

bye

Rhygoth, that is cheating. Sinse no where is a raneg defined, you say hes casting it on himself?? Thats liek me saying that as range aint defined, ill cast it on that bunker with the 9 imperial guard weapon teams in.

If you do what you said, you are cheating.

"Does fear of the darkness/fury of the ancients require line of sight?"

Yes. You can also use your opponents teleport homers, terminators don't wear armor, and Leman Russes can't fire over ork trukks.

See? Easy! I just cleared up about 1000+ combined pages of argument with one swift stroke. Man, what are we all going to do with our time now? Maybe it's not a good idea to answer these questions. I mean where else are we going to see gem comments like the ones on this page alone? I suppose I should insult someone or make an attempt at profanity to give this post some weight.

...Umm, let's see... Shut up...YOU. You're stupid! Shut up stupid! You...stupid...GUY!

That should do it. Well, I guess it's about time to go back to page 1 and actually read this thread. I'll meet up with you guys again on page 6 or 7 probably.

Aaaaahhh, of course! The old " if you're not doing it how I say to do it, you're a cheater argument." Gosh, it brings a tear to my eye. I don't think I've seen that one pulled out for at least the past 2 pages of threads. Thanks for the bit of nostalgia burn. I think I'll grant the next 2 seconds of wasted work on a Friday to thinking positive about ya just for that. Or not. I had to blow my nose instead.

But Rhygoth, you are a cheater! My way is the only way, and no compromise is possible.

Glaive company, this might not be an overlooked rule, like the terminators wearing termie armour. It could be the designers intent that they require line of sight...or it coudl not. Its not stupid to say they would require line of sight, but it is stupid to say that termiantors dont wear terminator armour.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 2:35 PM
Iorek, regarles of whether I annoy you or not, try to remain polite. This is a rules discussion, not a  place to vent your rage at other posters.

Does this go well with your very next comment:
"Listen here dill weed,"?

This is what the internet is truly all about.

I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range is going to be forced to read it. This will be the final post of the printout and must be answered by you, dear Marine player using Tigerius:

Do you agree with burnthexenos?
A) YES
B) NO

Moz: "I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range..."

Ha! You admitted that's it's a range! End of thread La La La La, I can't hear you anymore, La La.

Haha so true.  Oh bother.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 07/07/2006 4:12 PM
Moz: "I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range..."

Ha! You admitted that's it's a range! End of thread La La La La, I can't hear you anymore, La La.

Don't forget that capitilization matters in the rules, Moz was talking about the "range" not the "Range".......

Oh wait, now I forget if Tiggy doubles the range or the Range.

*Waves hand* Nothing to see here.

Iorek, my rage was justified, as it was directed at a person who refused to follow the rules, and stubbornly refused to believe that any opinion other than his own was right.

Moz, you do that. Im sure most sane marine players would happily agree with me...howeevr, dont forget that, by your own logic, printed articles are not rules, so this thread has no place in a rules discussion.

Glaive company, im sure he was just doing that because its easier than typing "area of effect". But the area of effect IS the range, which is doubled when Tiggy uses it..so end result is that we get to use 24 inch fear of the darkness anyway.

Snooggums, dont be pedantic and annoying. Your thread should also be considered spam.

Wait, I thought I was being pedantic and annoying. Darn you Snoogums! You're always stealing my thunder! You're all just lucky HonkeyBro isn't here.

Weisnheimer comments aside, I think you are correct burnthexenos. I am an admitted intent player myself. I believe that the intent was that the 12" described in the power is in fact a range. By calling that a range however, we create anomalies in other rules that simply use a measurement without specifically mentioning range. Of course, by saying that it is not a range we open the door to other strange occurences too. Mauleed actually pointed this out on page 1 or 2, but I felt it was worth mentioning again.

So, where does that leave us? Well, unfortunately, intent is variable from user to user so we must try to use the RAW. Now, there are different arguments to be made there as well. We are constantly arguing over what is fluff and what is rules, or the meaning of phrases such as "within" or "main body." However, stripping away what we believe is the intent or how we think it should work is always the first step in resolution. We must start there, and then attempt to use actual quotes from the book, FAQ,s, what a hobo at the bus stop tells us, or whatever to boil it down to a substantial argument. Frankly, by the RAW it does not appear that the range of the power is doubled for no better reason than the power has no specified range. Silly? Perhaps. Will you play it that the range/area of effect is doubled in your gaming circle? Sure, and you will probably never have a problem with it.

I have two comments:

First, what I think will become my new mantra for the YMDC forums: The rules are ambiguous and contradictory. On some level you all seem to know this, and yet you are willing to spend 5 pages claiming to be reaching a concrete conclusion based on ambiguous rules. Not possible.

Second: burnthexenos, you need to understand that you're not a very bright person. I have not been participating in this thread, I have never interacted with you directly, I have no history of animosity towards you. I simply read this thread and was amazed by your general lack of intellect, your confusion as to what constitutes an actual logical argument, and your general lack of maturity and class. You're really making a fool of yourself. I know you think everyone else in the thread is to blame, but I promise, they're really, really not. I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I'm just being honest with you. You're making a fool of yourself. If that's ok with you, then by all means, go for it. But don't think for a second that you're representing yourself positively.

 I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

 

Why not burnthexenos? It is not like someone will bother to find you bugger you and set you on fire while listening to Ray Coniff.  All you might get is a visit from the Church of Scientology and Richard Simmons.

This thread is the funniest thing  I've seen in months. Has anyone been accused of being a  Nazi yet or did I miss that part?

Thread locked due to the combined efforts of Burnthexenos, Iorek, and others.