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.

It's the only logical explanation.

I was blind but now I see..

Galdos wrote:Now maybe I am weak on the English language but Im fairly certain that (Using your kitchen analogy) that the second someone brings you ingredients you are no longer alone and if someone prepares desert you have been aided so you would be cooking, with company and aid.

No, thats not exactly how english works. If I'm in a car with four other people, and I do all the driving, I can truthfully say "I alone did all the driving". I wasn't 'alone' but I 'alone' did it. If you are the only person participating in an activity, then you are doing it alone, regardless of how many people are with you.

I mean, the quote itself refers to a battle, and the din of the battlefield. There was obviously more people there than just the five of them.

Kaldor wrote:

Galdos wrote:Now maybe I am weak on the English language but Im fairly certain that (Using your kitchen analogy) that the second someone brings you ingredients you are no longer alone and if someone prepares desert you have been aided so you would be cooking, with company and aid.

No, thats not exactly how english works. If I'm in a car with four other people, and I do all the driving, I can truthfully say "I alone did all the driving". I wasn't 'alone' but I 'alone' did it. If you are the only person participating in an activity, then you are doing it alone, regardless of how many people are with you.

I mean, the quote itself refers to a battle, and the din of the battlefield. There was obviously more people there than just the five of them.

Even so, that doesn't matter, as they did not help.

So, they might aswell of not been there.

Nevermind all this....
Draigo beating Mortarion in combat is like Abaddon beating Emperor in combat.
Draigo and Mortarion level are as different as skyscraper and 2 store house. There was no chance for Draigo to beat him and his bodyguards alone ( the text does say "single handily" ). Especially when Imperium lost almost entire company of Grey Knights fighting Angron who is also Daemon Primarch.
That doesn't make sense, either Draigo is that much powerful or Mortarion is as weak as Gretchin.

I think what we have established here is:

1. Some people are unable to accept that Draigo fighting ol' Mort the Daemon Primarch SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 4 F*****G LINES LONG! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT!

2. In the Miniscule amount of detail it clearly states that Draigo Battered past ol' Morts BODYGUARD ALONE

Meaning Draigo = Alone, Mort = Bodyguard = NOT ALONE

We simply cannot stoop to Matt Ward's level of idiocy. THE MAN WRITES LIKE A 2 year old with absolutly no comprehension of the gulf between the pairs abilities

Kaldor wrote:

Galdos wrote:Now maybe I am weak on the English language but Im fairly certain that (Using your kitchen analogy) that the second someone brings you ingredients you are no longer alone and if someone prepares desert you have been aided so you would be cooking, with company and aid.

No, thats not exactly how english works. If I'm in a car with four other people, and I do all the driving, I can truthfully say "I alone did all the driving". I wasn't 'alone' but I 'alone' did it. If you are the only person participating in an activity, then you are doing it alone, regardless of how many people are with you.

I mean, the quote itself refers to a battle, and the din of the battlefield. There was obviously more people there than just the five of them.

That's not how English works either. If you are alone, driving the car, then you are alone. If you alone are driving the car, then there could be people there to. Draigo's entry says that he, alone and unaided, smashed through Mortarion's bodyguard. He did it alone, he was the only one who fought. The fact that there could have been other people there is irrelevant, because they weren't doing anything.

Durza wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Galdos wrote:Now maybe I am weak on the English language but Im fairly certain that (Using your kitchen analogy) that the second someone brings you ingredients you are no longer alone and if someone prepares desert you have been aided so you would be cooking, with company and aid.

No, thats not exactly how english works. If I'm in a car with four other people, and I do all the driving, I can truthfully say "I alone did all the driving". I wasn't 'alone' but I 'alone' did it. If you are the only person participating in an activity, then you are doing it alone, regardless of how many people are with you.

I mean, the quote itself refers to a battle, and the din of the battlefield. There was obviously more people there than just the five of them.

That's not how English works either. If you are alone, driving the car, then you are alone. If you alone are driving the car, then there could be people there to. Draigo's entry says that he, alone and unaided, smashed through Mortarion's bodyguard. He did it alone, he was the only one who fought. The fact that there could have been other people there is irrelevant, because they weren't doing anything.

Well, they weren't doing anything relevant in this particular fight. They were most likely beating the snot out of other Death Guard nearby or something.

The Crusader wrote:I think what we have established here is:

1. Some people are unable to accept that Draigo fighting ol' Mort the Daemon Primarch SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 4 F*****G LINES LONG! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT!

2. In the Miniscule amount of detail it clearly states that Draigo Battered past ol' Morts BODYGUARD ALONE

Meaning Draigo = Alone, Mort = Bodyguard = NOT ALONE

We simply cannot stoop to Matt Ward's level of idiocy. THE MAN WRITES LIKE A 2 year old with absolutly no comprehension of the gulf between the pairs abilities

THANK YOU, on behalf of anyone who understands how language (alone) works and all ward Hater such as me!

The Crusader wrote:I think what we have established here is:

1. Some people are unable to accept that Draigo fighting ol' Mort the Daemon Primarch SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 4 F*****G LINES LONG! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT!

2. In the Miniscule amount of detail it clearly states that Draigo Battered past ol' Morts BODYGUARD ALONE

Meaning Draigo = Alone, Mort = Bodyguard = NOT ALONE

We simply cannot stoop to Matt Ward's level of idiocy. THE MAN WRITES LIKE A 2 year old with absolutly no comprehension of the gulf between the pairs abilities

The truth, its right infront of you. +1

The Crusader wrote:I think what we have established here is:

1. Some people are unable to accept that Draigo fighting ol' Mort the Daemon Primarch SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 4 F*****G LINES LONG! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT!

2. In the Miniscule amount of detail it clearly states that Draigo Battered past ol' Morts BODYGUARD ALONE

Meaning Draigo = Alone, Mort = Bodyguard = NOT ALONE

We simply cannot stoop to Matt Ward's level of idiocy. THE MAN WRITES LIKE A 2 year old with absolutly no comprehension of the gulf between the pairs abilities

Yep. It's kinda sad that we took 11 pages to establish this, and even then there will still be people like Kaldor who, perhaps due to their inability to read, will disagree with you.

LoneLictor wrote:

The Crusader wrote:I think what we have established here is:

1. Some people are unable to accept that Draigo fighting ol' Mort the Daemon Primarch SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 4 F*****G LINES LONG! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT!

2. In the Miniscule amount of detail it clearly states that Draigo Battered past ol' Morts BODYGUARD ALONE

Meaning Draigo = Alone, Mort = Bodyguard = NOT ALONE

We simply cannot stoop to Matt Ward's level of idiocy. THE MAN WRITES LIKE A 2 year old with absolutly no comprehension of the gulf between the pairs abilities

Yep. It's kinda sad that we took 11 pages to establish this, and even then there will still be people like Kaldor who, perhaps due to their inability to read, will disagree with you.

Sad, but true.. (YOUR ATTEMPT AT REWRITING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS FAILED, KALDOR)

Guys, I don't agree with Kaldor either, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kaldor has been largely polite this entire thread, despite not agreeing with us.

Huzzah! I came across a good synopsis. Note that this is not a personal attack, merely an observations on people and Matt Ward's innate inability to write semi-reasonable fluff

TheRobotLol wrote:Even so, that doesn't matter, as they did not help.

So, they might aswell of not been there.

Correct. But, it's a battlefield. We can't know what has happened previously, or what everyone else is doing at the time. It is totally within the realms of possibility that other people on the battlefield affected the outcome of the battle.

Now, before you say "BUT HE WAS UNAIDED" let me state that there has to be a time limit on the 'unaided' part. Whoever loaded Draigo's stormbolter for him aided him. Whoever piloted the ship that brought him to the battlefield aided him. Whoever gave him training aided him. Whoever prepared his last meal aided him. So we have to decide what, exactly, constitutes 'aid' in this context.

Am I wrong in considering that 'unaided' means that from the time he attacked the Deathshroud to the time he struck down Mortarion, he was fighting alone? Thats all that I consider 'unaided' to mean. I consider any and all other battlefield effects to potentially apply, from previous wounds to weakening of daemonic portals to distractions to other impending threats.

TheRobotLol wrote:Sad, but true.. (YOUR ATTEMPT AT REWRITING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS FAILED, KALDOR)

Look, this is getting quite off-topic, but you're wrong. Reading comprehension fail, on your part.

'alone' can mean many things, depending on the precise structure and context of the sentence. It can mean you are the only person there. It can mean you are the only type of a person there. It can mean you are undertaking an activity by yourself, regardless of the presence of other people. It can mean you are taking sole responsibility for something, despite the presence of other people at the time. Try this for an exercise. I'll write some sentences, and you can tell me what you think the word 'alone' means in that context.

The party was very noisy and everyone wanted to help, but alone and unaided, I finished the jigsaw puzzle

I was alone, and I did a jigsaw puzzle.

The three of us alone did the jigsaw puzzle.

I alone take responsibility for the jigsaw puzzle being completed.

Am I alone in hating thinking 'jigsaw' sounds really wierd now?

Brother Coa wrote:Nevermind all this....
Draigo beating Mortarion in combat is like Abaddon beating Emperor in combat.
Draigo and Mortarion level are as different as skyscraper and 2 store house. There was no chance for Draigo to beat him and his bodyguards alone ( the text does say "single handily" ). Especially when Imperium lost almost entire company of Grey Knights fighting Angron who is also Daemon Primarch.
That doesn't make sense, either Draigo is that much powerful or Mortarion is as weak as Gretchin.

And THIS is the only reason I entered this thread in the first place. The wailing that Draigo could never have beaten a Daemon primarch.

Kaldor wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:Even so, that doesn't matter, as they did not help.

So, they might aswell of not been there.

Correct. But, it's a battlefield. We can't know what has happened previously, or what everyone else is doing at the time. It is totally within the realms of possibility that other people on the battlefield affected the outcome of the battle.

Now, before you say "BUT HE WAS UNAIDED" let me state that there has to be a time limit on the 'unaided' part. Whoever loaded Draigo's stormbolter for him aided him. Whoever piloted the ship that brought him to the battlefield aided him. Whoever gave him training aided him. Whoever prepared his last meal aided him. So we have to decide what, exactly, constitutes 'aid' in this context.

Am I wrong in considering that 'unaided' means that from the time he attacked the Deathshroud to the time he struck down Mortarion, he was fighting alone? Thats all that I consider 'unaided' to mean. I consider any and all other battlefield effects to potentially apply, from previous wounds to weakening of daemonic portals to distractions to other impending threats.

TheRobotLol wrote:Sad, but true.. (YOUR ATTEMPT AT REWRITING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS FAILED, KALDOR)

Look, this is getting quite off-topic, but you're wrong. Reading comprehension fail, on your part.

'alone' can mean many things, depending on the precise structure and context of the sentence. It can mean you are the only person there. It can mean you are the only type of a person there. It can mean you are undertaking an activity by yourself, regardless of the presence of other people. It can mean you are taking sole responsibility for something, despite the presence of other people at the time. Try this for an exercise. I'll write some sentences, and you can tell me what you think the word 'alone' means in that context.

The party was very noisy and everyone wanted to help, but alone and unaided, I finished the jigsaw puzzle

I was alone, and I did a jigsaw puzzle.

The three of us alone did the jigsaw puzzle.

I alone take responsibility for the jigsaw puzzle being completed.

Am I alone in hating thinking 'jigsaw' sounds really wierd now?

Brother Coa wrote:Nevermind all this....
Draigo beating Mortarion in combat is like Abaddon beating Emperor in combat.
Draigo and Mortarion level are as different as skyscraper and 2 store house. There was no chance for Draigo to beat him and his bodyguards alone ( the text does say "single handily" ). Especially when Imperium lost almost entire company of Grey Knights fighting Angron who is also Daemon Primarch.
That doesn't make sense, either Draigo is that much powerful or Mortarion is as weak as Gretchin.

And THIS is the only reason I entered this thread in the first place. The wailing that Draigo could never have beaten a Daemon primarch.

Make up your mind mind. Either Draigo is awesome enough to beat a Daemon-Primarch on his own or not.

While I agree there is a large power gap between Draigo and Mortarion, I don't put it past Draigo to completely loose his fudge after seeing his mentor killed.

The bodyguard? I can see that. Mortarion himself? While not completely unfeasible, I really need to know more about the situation than the FOUR @*%&#^*&@ DAMN LINES WARD #%*(&#ING WROTE.

This is like trying to decipher exactly what Jesus did if everything after his Resurrection was written in only four lines in the same style that Ward writes. "Alone and unaided, Jesus rose from the dead. He then talked to some women, then they went and told his disciples, who didn't believe them, but then Jesus went around revealing himself to them. Then Jesus told them all to spread the word of God. Then Jesus left and said he'd come back pretty much whenever."

See? It's vague, and while technically it does cover what happened it isn't anywhere near as awesome as what actually happened, assuming you actually believe Jesus did what the bible says, otherwise, it's still written better than Ward's fluff for Draigo.

Hmm I wonder if Harker caught this much flak for beating Dracula or Saint George caught this much for killing the dragon.

No, because both those stories were well written

Eh some of those old stories are light on details but then you get tolkien who describes trees to you for chapters. :/ Eh I guess one thing I've always wondered is why many of the huge characters have these crazy codex entries but rarey seem to be seen in some of the novels.

In the sw ragnar, mephiston is the ba, and no one really in the gk one. It's be kinda cool if you got to read more of these guys exploits rather then random sm a or b. Kinda like the newer fantasy stuff getting to read about nagash, sigmar, etc.

I honestly cannot believe that this thread is still going.

I thought we had all reached the conclusion that yes, it did make sense, however, required a rather stupid amount of 'insight' and us drawing our own conclusions and therefore, actually did deserve a full-blown page(s) of text?

Seriously guys, there can't be much more to argue about.

Iranna.

Kaldor wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:Even so, that doesn't matter, as they did not help.

So, they might aswell of not been there.

Correct. But, it's a battlefield. We can't know what has happened previously, or what everyone else is doing at the time. It is totally within the realms of possibility that other people on the battlefield affected the outcome of the battle.

Now, before you say "BUT HE WAS UNAIDED" let me state that there has to be a time limit on the 'unaided' part. Whoever loaded Draigo's stormbolter for him aided him. Whoever piloted the ship that brought him to the battlefield aided him. Whoever gave him training aided him. Whoever prepared his last meal aided him. So we have to decide what, exactly, constitutes 'aid' in this context.

Am I wrong in considering that 'unaided' means that from the time he attacked the Deathshroud to the time he struck down Mortarion, he was fighting alone? Thats all that I consider 'unaided' to mean. I consider any and all other battlefield effects to potentially apply, from previous wounds to weakening of daemonic portals to distractions to other impending threats.

TheRobotLol wrote:Sad, but true.. (YOUR ATTEMPT AT REWRITING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS FAILED, KALDOR)

Look, this is getting quite off-topic, but you're wrong. Reading comprehension fail, on your part.

'alone' can mean many things, depending on the precise structure and context of the sentence. It can mean you are the only person there. It can mean you are the only type of a person there. It can mean you are undertaking an activity by yourself, regardless of the presence of other people. It can mean you are taking sole responsibility for something, despite the presence of other people at the time. Try this for an exercise. I'll write some sentences, and you can tell me what you think the word 'alone' means in that context.

The party was very noisy and everyone wanted to help, but alone and unaided, I finished the jigsaw puzzle

I was alone, and I did a jigsaw puzzle.

The three of us alone did the jigsaw puzzle.

I alone take responsibility for the jigsaw puzzle being completed.

Am I alone in hating thinking 'jigsaw' sounds really wierd now?

Brother Coa wrote:Nevermind all this....
Draigo beating Mortarion in combat is like Abaddon beating Emperor in combat.
Draigo and Mortarion level are as different as skyscraper and 2 store house. There was no chance for Draigo to beat him and his bodyguards alone ( the text does say "single handily" ). Especially when Imperium lost almost entire company of Grey Knights fighting Angron who is also Daemon Primarch.
That doesn't make sense, either Draigo is that much powerful or Mortarion is as weak as Gretchin.

And THIS is the only reason I entered this thread in the first place. The wailing that Draigo could never have beaten a Daemon primarch.

Yes but it said HE ALONE did it. Not, he alone, with an army, it says HE alone.

And I believe, the text means he alone and unaided beat mortarion, not the whole battle. just the lttle fight at the end where he smashes his bodyhuards and blablabla, that bits alone.

Void__Dragon wrote:Guys, I don't agree with Kaldor either, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kaldor has been largely polite this entire thread, despite not agreeing with us.

This. Unlike others in here, he hasn't stooped to impoliteness to try and make an opponent's argument seem beneath everyone's notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:No, because both those stories were well written

On the contrary, Dracula is mediocre as a piece of writing. It's only really of note due to how it redefined and streamlined otherwise disparate myths concerning vampires, thus creating the monster we recognise as a vampire today.
But I digress.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Guys, I don't agree with Kaldor either, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kaldor has been largely polite this entire thread, despite not agreeing with us.

This. Unlike others in here, he hasn't stooped to impoliteness to try and make an opponent's argument seem beneath everyone's notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:No, because both those stories were well written

On the contrary, Dracula is mediocre as a piece of writing. It's only really of note due to how it redefined and streamlined otherwise disparate myths concerning vampires, thus creating the monster we recognise as a vampire today.
But I digress.

Don't forget the insight it gives into that era's views on female sexuality.

daveNYC wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Guys, I don't agree with Kaldor either, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kaldor has been largely polite this entire thread, despite not agreeing with us.

This. Unlike others in here, he hasn't stooped to impoliteness to try and make an opponent's argument seem beneath everyone's notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:No, because both those stories were well written

On the contrary, Dracula is mediocre as a piece of writing. It's only really of note due to how it redefined and streamlined otherwise disparate myths concerning vampires, thus creating the monster we recognise as a vampire today.
But I digress.

Don't forget the insight it gives into that era's views on female sexuality.

True, true, but that could be gleaned from a lot of the literature of the time.

If everyone's still raging about how Draigo shouldn't be able to defeat Mortarion, how about Hector Rex vs. An'ggrath? The greatest of Khorne's servants (as in, greater than Angron), banished by an inquisitor in single combat. Yet I don't see anyone rage about THAT.


Then again, it's not written by Ward, so it doesn't count, right?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If everyone's still raging about how Draigo shouldn't be able to defeat Mortarion, how about Hector Rex vs. An'ggrath? The greatest of Khorne's servants (as in, greater than Angron), banished by an inquisitor in single combat. Yet I don't see anyone rage about THAT.


Then again, it's not written by Ward, so it doesn't count, right?

It might help if you actually read people's specific complaints instead of jumping to conclusions.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If everyone's still raging about how Draigo shouldn't be able to defeat Mortarion, how about Hector Rex vs. An'ggrath? The greatest of Khorne's servants (as in, greater than Angron), banished by an inquisitor in single combat. Yet I don't see anyone rage about THAT.


Then again, it's not written by Ward, so it doesn't count, right?

The difference is, it's actually WRITTEN.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If everyone's still raging about how Draigo shouldn't be able to defeat Mortarion, how about Hector Rex vs. An'ggrath? The greatest of Khorne's servants (as in, greater than Angron), banished by an inquisitor in single combat. Yet I don't see anyone rage about THAT.


Then again, it's not written by Ward, so it doesn't count, right?

The difference is, it's actually WRITTEN.

Wait...

Have we been arguing about something that hasn't actually been written for 10 pages? Oh the humanity!

/sarcasm.

Iranna.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Guys, I don't agree with Kaldor either, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kaldor has been largely polite this entire thread, despite not agreeing with us.

This. Unlike others in here, he hasn't stooped to impoliteness to try and make an opponent's argument seem beneath everyone's notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:No, because both those stories were well written

On the contrary, Dracula is mediocre as a piece of writing. It's only really of note due to how it redefined and streamlined otherwise disparate myths concerning vampires, thus creating the monster we recognise as a vampire today.
But I digress.

Pretty subjective there..

I find it to be well written (as do many others) or it wouldn't have endured as a novel this long, and still be printed, but even a mediocre piece of writing (your opinion, not fact ) beats the tripe that keeps winding up in codex fluff/BL.