Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Randall Turner wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:P.50 details how you USE a psychic power: "To USE a psychic power successfully the psyker must pass a Psychic test, which is a normal Leadership test."

That is how one will "Use" a psychic power.

Okay, I don't care about the outcome of this or squiggification or umpteen other ongoing semantic slapfights, but this is just wrong. And it's blatantly wrong, enough so that the word "stupid" might come into play. Passing a psychic test is clearly an enabling condition that must be met in order to then USE a psychic power. It's not in and of itself the USE of that power, it's a necessary precursor. Just like jwolf sez.

If you take and pass a psychic test, you can use the power.
If you take and fail a psychic test, you can NOT use the power.

See how "taking the test" isn't the same as using the power?

Using a Psychic power is different from the effects of said Psychic power being cast "Used"

Once you successfully use the psychic power you get the benefits of its effects. The use is casting the power, That is how you use a power according to P.50.

The effects of the power is not using the power. If this were true then any unit that has had Doom used on it, would have to make a psychic test. Which is not correct.

How do you not see that?

Dude, you snipped your "ima doofus" line out of your quote of my post. ie....

DeathReaper wrote:As using a power is described in the BRB as taking a psychic test.

... then go on another hand-waving spree w/more semantical hairsplitting and strawmanning. My post was, "taking a psychic test does not equal using a psychic power", as you're maintaining. I don't have jwolf's patience.

Randall Turner wrote:Dude, you snipped your "ima doofus" line out of your quote of my post. ie....

DeathReaper wrote:As using a power is described in the BRB as taking a psychic test.

... then go on another hand-waving spree w/more semantical hairsplitting and strawmanning. My post was, "taking a psychic test does not equal using a psychic power", as you're maintaining. I don't have jwolf's patience.

My ("ima doofus" line) Really? I thought we were having a civil discussion.

"taking a psychic test does not equal using a psychic power" Citation needed. Hint: it is not on P.50, because P.50 backs up my interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:"taking a psychic test does not equal using a psychic power" Citation needed. Hint: it is not on P.50, because P.50 backs up my interpretation.

really?

pp. 50 says that if you take a psychic test and fail, you can't use a psychic power.

If taking a psychic test is using a psychic power, you've got a contradiction - you're using a psychic power to determine you can't use a psychic power. And despite what Rigeld2 might think, a contradiction or a paradox or any other logical fallacy deriving from an assumption means the assumption is incorrect.

"rigeld2 wrote:
Please cite the rule that prevents a paradox."

The Use of a Psychic power is different than using the effects of said psychic power Use.

I would like to thank Kitzz, Lord Hat, and rigeld2 for what I believe are honest efforts to represent the other side of the argument. I apologize to liturgies of blood for offending you multiple times; I did not mean to do so.

At least we all agree that for actual game play, The Sanguine Sword lasts for one Assault Phase.

Randall Turner wrote:And despite what Rigeld2 might think, a contradiction or a paradox or any other logical fallacy deriving from an assumption means the assumption is incorrect.

False. You have no leg to stand on with that sentence.
It's only incorrect if it breaks the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:And despite what Rigeld2 might think, a contradiction or a paradox or any other logical fallacy deriving from an assumption means the assumption is incorrect.

False. You have no leg to stand on with that sentence.
It's only incorrect if it breaks the rules.

Dude. seriously. It's a form of formal logical proof, just like deduction or mathematical induction. (googling...)

Proof by Contradiction:
"In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true."

Bivalence:
"In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false."

The paradoxical argument you're referring to is FnP vs *.
There's no reason to assume that FnP creates a paradox because there's no need to re-evaluate if FnP could've been rolled.
Bringing it up here is pointless and purposely trying to drag the thread off topic.

rigeld2 wrote:The paradoxical argument you're referring to is FnP vs *.
There's no reason to assume that FnP creates a paradox because there's no need to re-evaluate if FnP could've been rolled.
Bringing it up here is pointless and purposely trying to drag the thread off topic.

A paradox or contradiction is always an indication of flawed logic. My point in this thread was that DeathReaper's assertion lead to one. And it is on topic, it went towards some logic on psychic power use, which was linked to duration.

I'll remove that quote in my sig if you like, I just thought it was funny.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The paradoxical argument you're referring to is FnP vs *.
There's no reason to assume that FnP creates a paradox because there's no need to re-evaluate if FnP could've been rolled.
Bringing it up here is pointless and purposely trying to drag the thread off topic.

A paradox or contradiction is always an indication of flawed logic. My point in this thread was that DeathReaper's assertion lead to one. And it is on topic, it went towards some logic on psychic power use, which was linked to duration.

I'll remove that quote in my sig if you like, I just thought it was funny.

That's not always true. And I don't care about your point - I do care that you implied I was wrong in the situation I referenced.
I don't care about your sig (or anyone else's - I have them off).
I was addressing the accusatory "tone" you typed that in.

You were totally wrong in saying that a paradox, or in this case contradiction, ever doesn't matter. The question of whether a contradiction exists in the case of FNP is a completely separate issue. Questioning whether one exists is always valid. But you cannot say things like:

rigeld2 wrote:It's only incorrect if it breaks the rules.

No, no, no! When you do that, you earn a measure of censure.

jwolf wrote:I would like to thank Kitzz, Lord Hat, and rigeld2 for what I believe are honest efforts to represent the other side of the argument. I apologize to liturgies of blood for offending you multiple times; I did not mean to do so.

At least we all agree that for actual game play, The Sanguine Sword lasts for one Assault Phase.

Well. you're welcome. I enjoy the debating more than the playing sometimes.

NOOOOOO!!!! Come on guys, we all know this is not the proper way to debate. It should be something like:
Question is asked.
Person A responds citing rule.
Person B comes in and says that the rule actually works differently.
Person A then calls Person B an idiot, and uses the dictionary to back up his position.
Person C comes in and says something completely off topic.
Person B insists he is right, and that Person A is a Troll.
Person A and B go back and forth with the same arguments.
Moderator comes in and berates everyone for being mean.
Thread dies off, as everyone loses interest.

Two months later...
New poster asks similar question.
Person A points to this thread.
Argument between Person A and Person B starts back up.

Rinse, and repeat.

Can we please get it right?

Happyjew wrote:NOOOOOO!!!! Come on guys, we all know this is not the proper way to debate. It should be something like:
Question is asked.
Person A responds citing rule.
Person B comes in and says that the rule actually works differently.
Person A then calls Person B an idiot, and uses the dictionary to back up his position.
Person C comes in and says something completely off topic.
Person B insists he is right, and that Person A is a Troll.
Person A and B go back and forth with the same arguments.
Moderator comes in and berates everyone for being mean.
Thread dies off, as everyone loses interest.

No it should be that D comes in before Trolling to give another look at the question and E asks why we all can't get along.
You are talking about Trolling as intended here this is all about trolling as written.

And of course, Person F-M agree with Person A, and think Person B is an idiot for interpreting the rules that way. At which point Person N comes in reads through the thread and decides that Person B (who has no rules backing whatsoever to support his position) seems to know what he is talking about and agrees with him.

Of course, we could always have a serious discussion, but that's no fun.