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.

Actually TLoS has been used in some way for every edition of 40k.

Even in 4th ed, people treated units as area terrain, when that was not actually the case. For example, my daemon prince is taller than my rhino. The way most people played 4th ed LoS you could not see the daemon prince on the other side of the rhino, because they were both "level 3".

The way the rules actually worked, only area terrain and close combats blocked LoS up to their level, and every other unit only had a height rating to determine if they could see over area terrain and close combats: it had absolutely nothing to do with shooting over other units, which used a "model's eye view" exactly as it does now.

being fair the number of times I've watch GW employs giving out test games and murdering the rules so that the little ships win. Its not really fair to complain about new players that haven't learned the golden rule ..."Managers manage the store because they are good at running a shop. This does not mean they know all when it comes to the game they sell. Take all they say with a pinch of salt, till you can back it up with written rules. "

Hell I'm still waiting on the new beast of Chaos codex that i was told would be out some time around now ... wonder if he meant Skaven ... still not an easy mistake.

What id we set it like Yahoo answers, where the most voted answer is floated to the top as the "accepted solution" ???

Warboss Lockjaw wrote:What id we set it like Yahoo answers, where the most voted answer is floated to the top as the "accepted solution" ???

And then I set-up a million sock accounts and vote "Space Marines have a 4+ Save" to the top.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.

You seem to indicate that being impolite = not swearing at your opponent.

This is a narrow view to be taking.

You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.

No its not. Formal debates do not permit insults-you lose immediately. Courtrooms don'ty permit them either. Neither do policy discussions. You only find this acceptable in the bar room, and that leads to fights, as this does.

Insults will lead to banning if continued. period.

Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.

No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.

Skinnattittar wrote:No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.

How can you disagree? When, as it has been said in this thread, and demonstrated in most threads, the first few answers to even basic questions are inevitably gak, and when I go to a tournament and have to inform my opponent of even how to resolve vehicle damage, my experience is that most 40k players simply don't know the rules well at all.

Gwar! wrote:I am perfectly Unbiased and fair!

willydstyle wrote:Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.

That's quite a strong *opinion*.

Personally I'd rather have a mod with an open mind than one that thinks they know everything.

Well, since I don't actually want to be a mod, there's no problem then.

willydstyle wrote:Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.

QFT
+1
I Agree
(^_^)

But seriously, if you look at the forum, you do have to admit a shockingly high proportion of answers are incorrect, save from a small core of people.

I agree with Skinnattittar to a degree: generally people are familiar with how the rules should be applied, even if they decide to apply them differently.

The problem, however, is moreso that this knowledge is instinctual, rather than the result of any analytical treatment. This is much like most of us know that 2+2=4, while only a few of us actually know how to write a mathematically valid proof of such an operation.*

That's obviously a problem when there are disagreements about what the rules say, and particularly the specifics that are so important to high-level play.

*A fascinating thing about the history of mathematics is that many mathematical discoveries/innovations were originally proved using proof-techniques that are no longer considered sufficient by modern mathematicians. Proof theory has changed and evolved over time as new mathematical problems arose, and different branches of mathematics cross-pollinated.

While I cannot prove 2+2=4, I can offer proof that 1+1=2, and thus imply that (1+1)+(1+1)=4
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Principia_Mathematica_theorem_54-43.png

willydstyle wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.

How can you disagree? When, as it has been said in this thread, and demonstrated in most threads, the first few answers to even basic questions are inevitably gak, and when I go to a tournament and have to inform my opponent of even how to resolve vehicle damage, my experience is that most 40k players simply don't know the rules well at all.

Because a lot of people think they are helping, but very well may not be. It does not mean they know nothing else about the game, just on the subject they are answering.

Nurglitch wrote:I agree with Skinnattittar to a degree: generally people are familiar with how the rules should be applied, even if they decide to apply them differently.

The problem, however, is moreso that this knowledge is instinctual, rather than the result of any analytical treatment. This is much like most of us know that 2+2=4, while only a few of us actually know how to write a mathematically valid proof of such an operation.*

That's obviously a problem when there are disagreements about what the rules say, and particularly the specifics that are so important to high-level play.

*A fascinating thing about the history of mathematics is that many mathematical discoveries/innovations were originally proved using proof-techniques that are no longer considered sufficient by modern mathematicians. Proof theory has changed and evolved over time as new mathematical problems arose, and different branches of mathematics cross-pollinated.

1/9 =0.1r
2/9 =0.2r
3/9 =0.3r
4/9 =0.4r
5/9 =0.5r
6/9 =0.6r
7/9 =0.7r
8/9 =0.8r
9/9 = ?

How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?

Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?

Actually, 9/9 IS 0.9r. Or, 1=0.999...

Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?

its pure maths so follow at your own risk ....
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6811268&tstart=0

(damn gwars wiki's better ... didn't find that )

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?

Actually, 9/9 IS 0.9r. Or, 1=0.999...

I learned something of this, but it was explained as general rounding error of computation. It is not actually possible to write out 0.9r, just 0.9r (i.e.: 0.9r is NOT equal t0 0.999999999999999999999 where 9 goes to infinity). If written as a proper proof, 1/9 * 9 will always equal 1. This is obviously a very simple example. But I could be wrong, I am not a mathmatician nor do I concern myself with coming within 1*10^-99 point of accuracy.

Skinnattittar wrote:Because a lot of people think they are helping, but very well may not be. It does not mean they know nothing else about the game, just on the subject they are answering.

Generally people answer questions they feel they know the most about. If what they know the most about is still wrong...

0.9r IS 0.999999999 to infinty. That's the whole point.

I'm sorry I've no idea how to put a line above a number to denote recurring. are is a short hand for recurring that I've used for years ... (yes i know it normally stands for radian)

1/9 = 0.1r
0.1r is NOT equal to 0.1 to infinity it is equal to 1/9

So, if 0.1r = 1/9 then;

0.1r * 9 = 1/9 * 9 = 9/9 = 1

0.1 recurring is the same as saying 0.1 to infinity.

0.9 recurring is the same as 0.9 to infinity.

0.9 recurring *9 = 1 the same as 0.9 to infinity *9 = 1.

Wait, WHEN THE HELL DID MATHS COME INTO THIS?

Skinnattittar 1/9 is 0.1 to infinity

1/9 = 0.9+ 0.1/9

Gwar! I only mentioned it as 1 = 0.9r and most people can't understand a rule having two correct answers in the same way . Its the same as the Square root of 4 ... the answers are 2 and -2.

I tried to keep it on topic...

I rather liked that diversion.

Thanks!

Square roots I know, but 1/9 is 0.1r where 'r' means recurring/repeating, not 'to infinity' which implies it is a 'solid' number, or one that you can dismiss as not being 1/9. This may just be an argument of semantics, but it really does matter.

0.1i where 'i' means 'to infinity'

0.1i * 9 = 0.9i

0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.

Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.

Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.

Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1

I did, and it essentially said that in many more technical words. Show me an example where 9/9 = 0.9i