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.

Simple question, really: How do twin-linked flamers work?

Simple answer: Re-roll to wound.

yep Nuglitch is correct. you re-roll all failed rolls to wound.

Says in rulebook. re roll to wound

Don't you also get a re-roll on armor penetration rolls too?

Why don't you read your rulebook and find out?

Nurglitch wrote:Why don't you read your rulebook and find out?

I was pointing it out in the friendly reminder way, rather than an actual question to someone who is obviously smarter than I am. :

Nurglitch wrote:Why don't you read your rulebook and find out?

That's about as helpfull as smaking someone in the head with the rule book.

I would hope he's read it; but just missed some stuff.

The rule book is not a simple book to read & it is quite difficult for a lot of people to remember huge amounts of information without having to re-read of have their memory prompted.

If you want to be usefull .... give a refference (i.e. A page number)

If you want to be an insensitive ass .... keep going the way you are.

Brother Tiberius wrote:I was pointing it out in the friendly reminder way, rather than an actual question to someone who is obviously smarter than I am.

So just say: "You also get a re-roll on armor penetration rolls." The interrogative is for asking questions, use the declarative for giving answers.

Meep357 wrote:That's about as helpfull as smaking someone in the head with the rule book.

I would hope he's read it; but just missed some stuff.

This is amusing since he's already explained that he mispoke himself.

Meep357 wrote:The rule book is not a simple book to read & it is quite difficult for a lot of people to remember huge amounts of information without having to re-read of have their memory prompted.

The rule book is a very simple book. It has pictures and everything. Immanuel Kant's titanic "Critique of Pure Reason", now there is a difficult book.

Meep357 wrote:If you want to be usefull .... give a refference (i.e. A page number)

Give a man a fish, he has lunch. Teach a man to fish, he might have lunch for the rest of his days. Remind a man to fish, he actually has the opportunity to eat. Point out that asking for fish when he is offering fish is incorrect, I have no idea. A boon to the economy maybe?

Meep357 wrote:If you want to be an insensitive ass .... keep going the way you are.

I thought there were forum rules against flaming. None against jumping to conclusions though, although that's probably for the better...

Nurglitch, I agree the flame was initially a bit rough, but then I broke the sentence down into it's component parts, and disseminated a completly different interpretation..

"If"-the prepositional statement/question. 1.
"you'-the indicative pronoun.2.
"want"-need/desire-also indicates intent.3.
"to"-verbal/action.4.
"be"- a state of relativity. ie conciousness in the real world.5.
"an"-the motion of action for the previous verb.6.
"insensitive"-descriptive adjective.7.
"ass"-you all know. I won't go into it.8.
Sentence/additional information.....
"keep going the way you are"-forceful hypothetical based on previous assertion.9.

So what we have is
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8=9.
Logically, that follows. Telling somebody to 'Read the book' is like telling somebody in an Iron-Lung to "learn to breath for yourself"

Mostly in jest, but the point about page numbers is relevant to the discussion.

Brother Tiberius-why are you asking? Do you have a situation where it came up? Can you please describe?

akira5665 wrote:Logically, that follows. Telling somebody to 'Read the book' is like telling somebody in an Iron-Lung to "learn to breath for yourself"

You're doing it incorrectly.

1. "If" conjunctive indicating a conditional proposition.
2. "you" pronoun, the subject
3. "want" intransitive verb,
4. "to be" transitive verb, infinitive
6. "an" indefinite article for the indirect object
7. "insensitive" adjective for the indirect object
8. "ass" noun, indirect object
9. etc

Since this is an order, rather than an indicative statement it expresses no logic and instead a pejorative or 'flame' since it refers to a human (me) as a stupid or foolish person rather than a sort of beast related to a horse. It is unlike telling someone to learn to read since learning to read is a honourably and desirable thing to do, and being an ass is not. Telling someone to learn to read, to engage in sharpening their reading skills, is like telling someone to breathe, however. The point about breathing is one that many people here in the West should also take to heart. As many people taking their reading skills for granted, so do they take their breathing skills and the incredible effect that control of breathe has.

@ Nurglitch-EXALT! gave me a good giggle.

Nurglitch wrote:

akira5665 wrote:Logically, that follows. Telling somebody to 'Read the book' is like telling somebody in an Iron-Lung to "learn to breath for yourself"

You're doing it incorrectly.

1. "If" conjunctive indicating a conditional proposition.
2. "you" pronoun, the subject
3. "want" intransitive verb,
4. "to be" transitive verb, infinitive
6. "an" indefinite article for the indirect object
7. "insensitive" adjective for the indirect object
8. "ass" noun, indirect object
9. etc

Since this is an order, rather than an indicative statement it expresses no logic and instead a pejorative or 'flame' since it refers to a human (me) as a stupid or foolish person rather than a sort of beast related to a horse. It is unlike telling someone to learn to read since learning to read is a honourably and desirable thing to do, and being an ass is not. Telling someone to learn to read, to engage in sharpening their reading skills, is like telling someone to breathe, however. The point about breathing is one that many people here in the West should also take to heart. As many people taking their reading skills for granted, so do they take their breathing skills and the incredible effect that control of breathe has.

If you're going to do an analysis of my "flame". Do it properly. Use the correct gramamtical process to break it down in to clauses & then analyse the meanings.

Anaylising the individual words in a sentence does nothing; in fact it's over analysis and that leads to false assumptions, mistakes & missing the point. It's like going to the country and analysing the dirt, tree trunks & leaves. You walk away with the impression that you're in a forest when you're really in an orchid.

You may have noticed, just maybe, that the role of each word in the clause has been noted. So yes, in fact the sentence you flamed me with was broken down into clauses, and those clauses further broken down into terms, with the break-down annotated so that nothing of the whole is lost. But don't let the truth get in the way of your efforts.

Meep357 wrote:If you want to be an insensitive ass .... keep going the way you are.

Meep357, this does constitute a flame. This is a warning. Please do not make personal attacks on other posters. Please PM a moderator or hit the Alert Mods button if you think a post is in violation of the rules.

Nurglitch (and everyone else) please try to be careful in observing Rule #1.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Brother Tiberius wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Why don't you read your rulebook and find out?

I was pointing it out in the friendly reminder way, rather than an actual question to someone who is obviously smarter than I am. :

Don't worry Brother, the rest of us understood you and and I'm certain your smarts are not lacking in any comparison to anyone else.

Nurglitch, not that I care to point out again that what you said was rude and all, but saying "If you want to be x, keep doing y" isn't a flame against you, rather your behavior. In effect it is saying that consistant behavior will make you into something that displays that behavior consistantly is merely a cause effect relationship, not saying that you are already that something.

Perfectly nice people can be mean sometimes, but that doesn't make them mean. And pointing out "You are being mean, and will be a mean person if you keep it up" does not constitute a personal attack.

I also need to note my surprise at how often you type rather unpleasant and rude things for someone who seems to take such an interest in language use.

Wehrkind wrote:Nurglitch, not that I care to point out again that what you said was rude and all, but saying "If you want to be x, keep doing y" isn't a flame against you, rather your behavior. In effect it is saying that consistant behavior will make you into something that displays that behavior consistantly is merely a cause effect relationship, not saying that you are already that something.

Perfectly nice people can be mean sometimes, but that doesn't make them mean. And pointing out "You are being mean, and will be a mean person if you keep it up" does not constitute a personal attack.

I also need to note my surprise at how often you type rather unpleasant and rude things for someone who seems to take such an interest in language use.

Well said Wehrkind. For instance, it is true that some professors can get into the habit of acting superior and belittling their students but it doesn't mean they are actually superior to their students even though they might think of themselves that way... Just as an example to further your point if I understand you correctly.

Wehrkind wrote:Nurglitch, not that I care to point out again that what you said was rude and all, but saying "If you want to be x, keep doing y" isn't a flame against you, rather your behavior.

I said nothing rude.

Wehrkind wrote:In effect it is saying that consistant behavior will make you into something that displays that behavior consistantly is merely a cause effect relationship, not saying that you are already that something.

Whatever its intended effect is calling someone an "insensitive ass" is rude. The poster in question could have simply said: "That was insensitive." or "Please don't be so insensitive." or even "We would appreciate it if you were more circumspect about the way you express your comments in the future.". Those would have been less hypocritical.

Wehrkind wrote:Perfectly nice people can be mean sometimes, but that doesn't make them mean. And pointing out "You are being mean, and will be a mean person if you keep it up" does not constitute a personal attack.

Entirely correct, except that if the advice is phrased pejoratively then yes, it constitutes a personal attack. The poster in question did not say "You are being mean", they said: "If you want to be an insensitive ass .... keep going the way you are." The former is not a personal attack, and the latter is.

Wehrkind wrote:I also need to note my surprise at how often you type rather unpleasant and rude things for someone who seems to take such an interest in language use.

Curious isn't it? I wonder why that is?

Nurglitch wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I also need to note my surprise at how often you type rather unpleasant and rude things for someone who seems to take such an interest in language use.

Curious isn't it? I wonder why that is?

We all know why that is. And it speaks volumes.

I dare you to infer that he should type it out, point by point...............

PS Beast-I like your 'Sig' Icons. Nice.

Why don't we all look at the clouds, and the smiles on little Babies faces? The world would be a nicer place.