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.

col_impact wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
That wasn't the question he asked.

It's not a relevant question.

It's extreamly relevent.

The argument being presented is that FMC have access to Deep Strike at all times per the rule

Yet it doesn't. You attempt to drown the reader in a wall of rules, but actually going through it they do not have access to it all times.

Quite a change from your previous stance of they don't have it, but you can still use it as they gain it later (note relevence to above question).

The Flight Mode allows them to move as a JMC. They may not select a Flight Mode in Rederve. Disagree? Then post a rule (not a wall of text in an attempt to decieve, just the line).

If JinxDragon's question is not relevent, it still won't take but a second to answer. Unless you fear the answer will undermine your position?

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
That wasn't the question he asked.

It's not a relevant question.

It's extreamly relevent.

The argument being presented is that FMC have access to Deep Strike at all times per the rule

Yet it doesn't. You attempt to drown the reader in a wall of rules, but actually going through it they do not have access to it all times.

Quite a change from your previous stance of they don't have it, but you can still use it as they gain it later (note relevence to above question).

The Flight Mode allows them to move as a JMC. They may not select a Flight Mode in Rederve. Disagree? Then post a rule (not a wall of text in an attempt to decieve, just the line).

If JinxDragon's question is not relevent, it still won't take but a second to answer. Unless you fear the answer will undermine your position?

The question is not relevant to the argument being presented.

FMC have access to the Deep Strike rule at all times.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

I look at the description and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

Deep Strike is granted.

You should stick with actually arguing against my argument instead of insulting, strawmanning, or seeking to de-rail with nonrelevant questions.

col_impact wrote:
The question is not relevant to the argument being presented.

The whole world and its Dog can see the relevance of this question. And anyone reading this thread will understand clearly your fear of answering it.

FMC have access to the Deep Strike rule at all times.

Shown to be a false statement.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

I look at the description and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

The description is only found in the Swooing and Gliding rules. Neither rule can be called by a unit in reserve. By using this description, you are evoking a rule unavailable to a model. The question you refuse to answer gains relevance here.

Deep Strike is granted.

Again false. Provide a rule allowing use of swooping or gliding in reserve. Page and paragraph please.

You should stick with actually arguing against my argument instead of insulting, strawmanning, or seeking to de-rail with nonrelevant questions.

Your argument has changed constantly. When asked to back up a theory you refuse to post rules. When asked a relevent question you refuse to answer. When rules are posted, they are presented as an unreadable wall of text designed to confuse and bury. You then make a claim not present in these rules and again refuse to back them up. You are not participating in this debate, you are de-railing it.

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The question is not relevant to the argument being presented.

The whole world and its Dog can see the relevance of this question. And anyone reading this thread will understand clearly your fear of answering it.

FMC have access to the Deep Strike rule at all times.

Shown to be a false statement.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

I look at the description and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

The description is only found in the Swooing and Gliding rules. Neither rule can be called by a unit in reserve. By using this description, you are evoking a rule unavailable to a model. The question you refuse to answer gains relevance here.

Deep Strike is granted.

Again false. Provide a rule allowing use of swooping or gliding in reserve. Page and paragraph please.

You should stick with actually arguing against my argument instead of insulting, strawmanning, or seeking to de-rail with nonrelevant questions.

Your argument has changed constantly. When asked to back up a theory you refuse to post rules. When asked a relevent question you refuse to answer. When rules are posted, they are presented as an unreadable wall of text designed to confuse and bury. You then make a claim not present in these rules and again refuse to back them up. You are not participating in this debate, you are de-railing it.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

The rule simply asks me to look at the FMC entry.

I look at the FMC entry and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

Deep Strike is granted.


You are following this rule which does not exist in the rules . . .

"Units that are 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

Provide a rule allowing the selection of a Flight Mode while in reserve. Page and paragraph please.

Relevance: The JMC movement description is found in the Flight Mode rules.

 grendel083 wrote:
Provide a rule allowing the selection of a Flight Mode while in reserve. Page and paragraph please.

Relevance: The JMC movement description is found in the Flight Mode rules.

Not relevant.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

The rule simply asks me to look at the FMC entry.

Col_Impact,
Putting aside that it is a relevant question, the point of that post wasn't the question itself but the part that came before it... the reason as to why demanding your opponent answer Yes or No is a completely dishonest way to debate a Rule.

That question was very much loaded, stripped of all context but presented in a way that still makes it relevant to the topic being discussed. The purpose of such a question is not greater understanding of a Rule, it is designed to force an opponent to take an additional position on the matter. This is done purely to force that person to defend a position they didn't start with, because it is easier to undermine the new position, and should never be done in honest debate. It is a version of a Straw-man, and unless executed in far better format then what I have seen here... an obvious attempt at as Strawman at that.

Either way, by not answering my question as presented you have proven my point as completely valid.
So can we please stop demanding people answer Yes or No to loaded questions now?

col_impact wrote:
Not relevant.

Since you have declined to answer, I'll take that as admition that you cannot use a Flight Mode while in Reserve. If you feel this is inaccurate, feel free to post the rules as requested.

Based on this admition, since the rule cannot be used but you wish to envoke it anyway, please answer the following:

JinxDragon wrote:
Can a Model evoke a Rule before it gains access to that Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
Putting aside that it is a relevant question, the point of that post wasn't the question itself but the part that came before it... the reason why demanding your opponent answer Yes or No is completely dishonest. That question is very loaded, stripped of all context but still relevant to the question on hand, as it is designed to force you to defend a position that is harder to fight from. If the answer to that question is Yes, then you open the door to all sorts of insanity such as Re-Rolling all shots because a Psyker may grant you Twin-Linked in the future. If the answer to that question is No, then you are left in a position where you have to argue why this one situation is an exception to the answer you just provided.

Either way, by not answering my question as presented you have proven the point I was trying to make.
Can we please stop demanding people answer Yes or No to loaded questions now?

The reason I don't answer the question is simply because it is not relevant. By answering the question it would give an air of being relevant and enable an attempt at de-railing the discussion into nonrelevant matters.

The question is clearly not relevant to the argument being put forward. My argument is simple and should be directly dealt with without insult, de-rail, or strawmanning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Not relevant.

Since you have declined to answer, I'll take that as admition that you cannot use a Flight Mode while in Reserve. If you feel this is inaccurate, feel free to post the rules as requested.

Based on this admition, since the rule cannot be used but you wish to envoke it anyway, please answer the following:

JinxDragon wrote:
Can a Model evoke a Rule before it gains access to that Rule?

Not relevant.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

The rule simply asks me to look at the FMC entry.

Since you refuse to answer any questions the debate cannot move forward.

I suggest the thread can be closed.

In other words for you there is no difference between these two statements . . .


A) "Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

B) "Units that are 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

Clearly A and B are asking us to do different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
Since you refuse to answer any questions the debate cannot move forward.

I suggest the thread can be closed.

The reason I don't answer the question is simply because it is not relevant. By answering the question it would give an air of being relevant and enable an attempt at de-railing the discussion into nonrelevant matters.

The question is clearly not relevant to the argument being put forward. My argument is simple and should be directly dealt with without insult, de-rail, or strawmanning.

You spent two pages arguing the definition of "Declare" despite that not being relevent to a FMC arriving via Deep Strike.

Yet answering simple questions is a step to far apparently.

If you won't answer a relevent question, how can you expect anyone else too.

This debate cannot move forward.

Strange, I don't see 'Not Relevant' as an acceptable answer to this Yes or No Question.

You can try and claim it is "Not Relevant" as much as you want, but in doing so you are proving my point over and over again....
There is no way one can answer the question, as it was presented, without triggering the obvious trap within given how it was formatted and presented. The only sensible thing a reasoning mind would do, when presented with such an obvious trap, is what you are attempting to do here... to provide an answer which better explains why they believe the question is not valid. However, as you have seen personally now, the response of such a move is a demand that the question is answered as presented followed by an accusation that failing to do so proves your point is invalid. The sad part about my post on this point is we now have both sides demanding that loaded questions be answered.

So again:
Can both sides stop demanding people answer Yes or No to loaded questions?

Is there a difference for you between these two statements?

A) "Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

B) "Units that are 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

col_impact wrote:
Is there a difference for you between these two statements?

Not relevent.

JinxDragon wrote:
Strange, I don't see 'Not Relevant' as an acceptable answer to this Yes or No Question.

You can try and claim it is "Not Relevant" as much as you want, but by doing so you are proving my point over and over again. There is no way you can answer the question as it was presented in a way that would be honest to your side of the debate, and it was presented in such a way that you have no option but to answer it in a way that leads to that outcome. The sensible and reasoning mind would do what you are attempting to do here, to provide an answer which better explains why they believe the question is not valid. However, as you have seen personally now, the response of such a move is a demand that the question is answered as presented followed by an accusation that failing to do so proves your point is invalid....

So again:
Can both sides stop demanding people answer Yes or No to loaded questions?

I am just declining to answer nonrelevant questions. I don't get suckered into obvious attempts at de-railing. Deal directly with the argument I am putting forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Is there a difference for you between these two statements?

Not relevent.

That's fine. My argument stands then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Strange, I don't see 'Not Relevant' as an acceptable answer to this Yes or No Question.

You can try and claim it is "Not Relevant" as much as you want, but in doing so you are proving my point over and over again.

There is no way one can answer the question, as it was presented, without triggering the obvious trap within given how it was formatted and presented. The only sensible thing a reasoning mind would do, when presented with such an obvious trap, is what you are attempting to do here... to provide an answer which better explains why they believe the question is not valid. However, as you have seen personally now, the response of such a move is a demand that the question is answered as presented followed by an accusation that failing to do so proves your point is invalid. The sad part about my post on this point is we now have both sides demanding that loaded questions be answered....

So again:
Can both sides stop demanding people answer Yes or No to loaded questions?

I do wholeheartedly agree that this discussion absolutely stays professional, right Grendel?

The relevence of the questions is plain for all to see.

And you demand answers to your questions while refusing to answer anyone that might disagree with you.

This is not debate.

I once again suggest the thread be locked, as due to your refusal to contribute, the debate cannot move on.

 grendel083 wrote:
The relevence of the questions is plain for all to see.

And you demand answers to your questions while refusing to answer anyone that might disagree with you.

This is not debate.

I once again suggest the thread be locked, as due to your refusal to contribute, the debate cannot move on.

Asking for a closed thread is unprofessional and disruptive behavior. Why are you stooping to these tactics?

This is my argument. Deal with it directly.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

The rule simply asks me to look at the FMC entry.

I look at the FMC entry and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

Deep Strike is granted.

col_impact wrote:
This is my argument. Deal with it directly.

Very well, despite you being too rude to answer anyone else.

I look at the FMC entry and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

It is described as such in the rules for Swooping and Gliding. Two rules that may not be applied to a FMC while in Reserve.

In order to Justify their use, please provide rules support for using a Flight Mode in Reserve.

If you cannot provide the above rules support, please supply rules support allowing for the use of a Special Rule that is not available to a model.

If you cannot provide rules support for the above, then the use of any description found in the Flight Mode rules cannot be used. This in turn means the model is not described as moving like a JMC.

Deep Strike is denied.

I eargly await your rules support for the above request information.

 grendel083 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This is my argument. Deal with it directly.

Very well, despite you being too rude to answer anyone else.

I look at the FMC entry and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

It is described as such in the rules for Swooping and Gliding. Two rules that may not be applied to a FMC while in Reserve.

In order to Justify their use, please provide rules support for using a Flight Mode in Reserve.

If you cannot provide the above rules support, please supply rules support allowing for the use of a Special Rule that is not available to a model.

If you cannot provide rules support for the above, then the use of any description found in the Flight Mode rules cannot be used. This in turn means the model is not described as moving like a JMC.

Deep Strike is denied.

I eargly await your rules support for the above request information.

This is my rule support.

"Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

The rule simply asks me to look at the FMC entry.

I look at the FMC entry and the FMC is indeed "described as 'moving like' Jump units"

Deep Strike is granted.


In other words I do not conflate these two rule statements.

A) "Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

B) "Units that are 'moving like' Jump units follow all of the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules."

You are conflating those two rule statements.

You failed to provide any of the requested rules support.
I'll take this as admition that rules support does not exist.

Your postion also supports statement C) "Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units some point in their future, even if not presently, follow the rules for jump units, and use their special rules."

So, does everyone feel like they've repeated themselves enough yet?

I think it's time to give this one a rest.