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.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Believe the very literal reading is dishonest if you wish, but you are the one wanting to leave this in the realm of 'Pure Rule as Written.'

I am just saying that your position on that point is simply not tenable. Slipping in "to move" in the rule would take us off a RAW discussion whether you want to admit it or not. The Pure Rule as Written argument is a strawman argument if there ever was one. I have always offered just a RAW one.

There is simply a difference between

"can only use the Gliding Flight Mode"

"can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"

If you want to rest your whole counter-argument on conflating those two statements, then you are committing an easy to spot logical fallacy and semantic fault to do so.

Is that the only black hole you are talking about, the one that comes from reading the rule as "can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"?

There is no difference in those statements as regards to how they apply. Your logic is that you can break any rule in the game as long as you can find another rule giving you permission to do something at a later point in the events. Like firing Ordnance last on a vehicle to avoid the other weapons Snap Firing.

The entirety of your argument was that Swooping was "After the Fact." Now you are trying to create something new since that was shown incorrect. You are forbidden from Swooping. Therefore you cannot take any action that would make you Swooping, which DS does.

Your entire argument is an epic fail.

My entire argument just involves applying BvA in an appropriate situation. This is what the BRB tells us to do in these situations. If you have a problem with BvA you have a problem with the rules themselves.

You are working from some Fundamental Concept idea that isn't in the rules and that's what your hang up is. See JinxDragon's posts above.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Believe the very literal reading is dishonest if you wish, but you are the one wanting to leave this in the realm of 'Pure Rule as Written.'

I am just saying that your position on that point is simply not tenable. Slipping in "to move" in the rule would take us off a RAW discussion whether you want to admit it or not. The Pure Rule as Written argument is a strawman argument if there ever was one. I have always offered just a RAW one.

There is simply a difference between

"can only use the Gliding Flight Mode"

"can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"

If you want to rest your whole counter-argument on conflating those two statements, then you are committing an easy to spot logical fallacy and semantic fault to do so.

Is that the only black hole you are talking about, the one that comes from reading the rule as "can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"?

There is no difference in those statements as regards to how they apply. Your logic is that you can break any rule in the game as long as you can find another rule giving you permission to do something at a later point in the events. Like firing Ordnance last on a vehicle to avoid the other weapons Snap Firing.

The entirety of your argument was that Swooping was "After the Fact." Now you are trying to create something new since that was shown incorrect. You are forbidden from Swooping. Therefore you cannot take any action that would make you Swooping, which DS does.

Your entire argument is an epic fail.

My entire argument just involves applying BvA in an appropriate situation. This is what the BRB tells us to do in these situations. If you have a problem with BvA you have a problem with the rules themselves.

You are working from some Fundamental Concept idea that isn't in the rules and that's what your hang up is. See JinxDragon's posts above.

You have never applied BvA. You do not appear to understand how it applies in basic situations.

JinxDragon wrote:
Which would mean you used only the Gliding Flight Mode, correct?

Deep Striking does not break the rule "can only use Gliding Flight Mode"

It does not require the use of a Flight Mode.

If you do not use a Flight Mode, have you used only the Gliding Flight Mode?

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Believe the very literal reading is dishonest if you wish, but you are the one wanting to leave this in the realm of 'Pure Rule as Written.'

I am just saying that your position on that point is simply not tenable. Slipping in "to move" in the rule would take us off a RAW discussion whether you want to admit it or not. The Pure Rule as Written argument is a strawman argument if there ever was one. I have always offered just a RAW one.

There is simply a difference between

"can only use the Gliding Flight Mode"

"can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"

If you want to rest your whole counter-argument on conflating those two statements, then you are committing an easy to spot logical fallacy and semantic fault to do so.

Is that the only black hole you are talking about, the one that comes from reading the rule as "can only move using the Gliding Flight Mode"?

There is no difference in those statements as regards to how they apply. Your logic is that you can break any rule in the game as long as you can find another rule giving you permission to do something at a later point in the events. Like firing Ordnance last on a vehicle to avoid the other weapons Snap Firing.

The entirety of your argument was that Swooping was "After the Fact." Now you are trying to create something new since that was shown incorrect. You are forbidden from Swooping. Therefore you cannot take any action that would make you Swooping, which DS does.

Your entire argument is an epic fail.

My entire argument just involves applying BvA in an appropriate situation. This is what the BRB tells us to do in these situations. If you have a problem with BvA you have a problem with the rules themselves.

You are working from some Fundamental Concept idea that isn't in the rules and that's what your hang up is. See JinxDragon's posts above.

You have never applied BvA. You do not appear to understand how it applies in basic situations.

If you bother to work out the problem step by step you will get a handle on it. Until that point in time you aren't really examining the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
If you do not use a Flight Mode, have you used only the Gliding Flight Mode?

You are using the hyper literal meaning of the word, which breaks Flyrant altogether. Is that your solution going forward?

col_impact wrote:


If you bother to work out the problem step by step you will get a handle on it. Until that point in time you aren't really examining the problem.


You are using the hyper literal meaning of the word, which breaks Flyrant altogether. Is that your solution going forward?

See, your diverting here. You lost argument and are now trying to evade by throwing things like this in. You have done this for pages now. You cannot get around the fact that you have to Swoop when you cannot by rule.

col_impact, I have a model that can Run after shooting (codex rule). Bikes cannot Run (BRB rule). Does BvA allow said model to Run after shooting?

If one wants a pure Rule as Written stance on something, then one has to accept the broken outcome which can occur is the 'Rule as Written answer.'

Every poster here knows that a pure Rule as Written stance on something may lead to a clearly broken outcome, they also accept that the possibility of this occurring is far higher then any Rule System should allow thanks to the fact we are dealing with Game Workshop here. Therefore, the answer of 'broken outcome' is a valid one when it comes to such a debate as it may be the only answer which does not involve manipulating the language used within the Rule itself.

I am going to stick with the Fundamental Concept of 'undertake no action that will lead to an illegal outcome' whenever we encounter a Rule appearing to grant us permission to break the game. All I will state is thank you for bringing me to the conclusion that this is a Fundamental Concept. While a better Rule system might be written to prevent us from simply being able to break a the game at a whim, the Rules are designed within the concept that the players are not actively trying to break the game and will therefore chose actions which do not lead to broken outcomes.

For Rule as Written does come back to this question, which really should easily be yes or no answerable:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Fragile wrote:
There is no difference in those statements as regards to how they apply. Your logic is that you can break any rule in the game as long as you can find another rule giving you permission to do something at a later point in the events. Like firing Ordnance last on a vehicle to avoid the other weapons Snap Firing.

The entirety of your argument was that Swooping was "After the Fact." Now you are trying to create something new since that was shown incorrect. You are forbidden from Swooping. Therefore you cannot take any action that would make you Swooping, which DS does.

Your entire argument is an epic fail.

100% this.

JinxDragon wrote:
If one wants a pure Rule as Written stance on something, then one has to accept the broken outcome which can occur is the 'Rule as Written answer.'

Every poster here knows that a pure Rule as Written stance on something may lead to a clearly broken outcome, they also accept that the possibility of this occurring is far higher then any Rule System should allow thanks to the fact we are dealing with Game Workshop here. Therefore, the answer of 'broken outcome' is a valid one when it comes to such a debate as it may be the only answer which does not involve manipulating the language used within the Rule itself.

I am going to stick with the Fundamental Concept of 'undertake no action that will lead to an illegal outcome' whenever we encounter a Rule appearing to grant us permission to break the game. All I will state is thank you for bringing me to the conclusion that this is a Fundamental Concept. While a better Rule system might be written to prevent us from simply being able to break a the game at a whim, the Rules are designed within the concept that the players are not actively trying to break the game and will therefore chose actions which do not lead to broken outcomes.

For Rule as Written does come back to this question, which really should easily be yes or no answerable:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

If you want to go around telling people that the Flyrant can't do anything but use Gliding Flight Mode (no shooting, no psychic phase, no special rules) then be my guest. Absurd proposals are not worth wasting time discussing unless you are indeed going to follow through and make that proposal. So please go ahead and make a YMDC separate thread and let people know your finding that Flyrant can't do literally anything except Glide. Let's stick to discussing the non-absurd.

So until I see you follow through with your discovery and spread the word of how the Flyrant can't actually do anything, then all you have attempted here is really a contentless disruptive tactic and my argument still stands.

Moreover, your argument, minus the silly absurd stuff, fully supports mine. Your black hole was a fiction of an absurd read of the rules. And it shows that BvA works without a hitch. So thank you.

I will not, as I am not the one trying to make a Rule as Written debate based on the wording found within this single Restriction. There is no reason for me to go screaming about 'yet another broken Rule' on any site, let alone one which has a related topic found on the very front page. The best people would get from me concerning this restriction, from pure Rule as Written, is a 'outcome is broken, discuss it with your opponent' answer, that does not require a thread all of it's own. Besides, are we not currently discussing that very topic on a thread which was created for the purpose of discussing a situation where this topic may or may not occur?

As for you though, still waiting for an answer to this question:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

JinxDragon wrote:
I will not, as I am not the one trying to make a Rule as Written debate based on the wording found within this single Restriction.
The best people would get from me concerning this restriction, from pure Rule as Written, is a 'outcome is broken, discuss it with your opponent' answer.

No the outcome is not broken, the outcome is illegal.

If you take an action that results in a rule being broken, you can not take that action.

Permissive ruleset and all.

JinxDragon wrote:
I will not, as I am not the one trying to make a Rule as Written debate based on the wording found within this single Restriction.
The best people would get from me concerning this restriction, from pure Rule as Written, is a 'outcome is broken, discuss it with your opponent' answer.

As for you though, still waiting for an answer to this question:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Is this a serious proposition from you, that the Flyrant cannot shoot because he can only use the Gliding Flight Mode?

If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

JinxDragon wrote:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Is this a serious proposition from you, that the Flyrant cannot shoot or do anything besides use the Gliding Flight Mode because he can only use the Gliding Flight Mode?

Yes, but only if one remove all context from the Rule itself and apply it exactly as Written....

Now I have answered your loaded and pointless question, answer mine:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

JinxDragon wrote:
Yes, but only if one remove all context from the Rule itself and apply it exactly as Written....

Now I have answered your loaded and pointless question, answer mine:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Okay, make a separate post on YMDC and let everyone know your discovery, since you said this is a serious proposal. It's important to get your findings out there. Everyone has been playing it wrong.

Otherwise, this isn't a serious proposal and you are just being deceitful and firing off contentless disruptive tactics.

That would violate the tenets of this site, as the topic is clearly being discussed in a multi-paged thread which is active enough to currently be at the top of the queue....

So please answer this question, and I won't scoop to claiming you are simply being disruptive based on your answer:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

JinxDragon wrote:
That would violate the tenets of this site, as the topic is clearly being discussed in a many page thread that is still on the front page.

Again:
If we do not use a Flight Mode, have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

I only answer serious questions. You are not being serious. Discussing absurdly literal reads is pointless and you are just being disruptive.

So back up, throw out the absurd silly stuff and get back to the real debate.

It is a very serious question, for you are trying to state that it is legal to not use a Flight Mode when faced with this very Restriction:
So, if we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

JinxDragon wrote:
It is a very serious question, for you are trying to state that it is legal to not use a Flight Mode when faced with this very Restriction.

So, if we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?
Please answer, and I won't demand you do some action to 'prove you are being sincere' or claim you are being dishonest simply based on what answer you give.

Does this question apply to the Flyrant shooting or manifesting a psychic power?

I won't demand you do some action to 'prove you are being sincere' or claim you are being dishonest simply based on what answer you give. I won't even claim your attempts to deflect away from this question are somehow signs of a weak argument, though I will honestly be thinking it. All I will do at this point in time is I have granted you a great deal more then the others on this site are willing, most people refuse to enter into a debate where one of the opponents has framed how the debate will occur. So, please, just answer the question....

If we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Another three pages of ducking , and no questions answered.

Let it die, please? We have one absurd , inconsistent non-rules based argument, and one that is rational. Nothing has changed in 10 pages.

JinxDragon wrote:
I won't demand you do some action to 'prove you are being sincere' or claim you are being dishonest simply based on what answer you give. I won't even claim your attempts to deflect away from this question are somehow signs of a weak argument, though I will honestly be thinking it. All I will do at this point in time is I have granted you a great deal more then the others on this site are willing, most people refuse to enter into a debate where one of the opponents has framed how the debate will occur. So, please, just answer the question....

If we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

If the Flyrant shoots and does not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I won't demand you do some action to 'prove you are being sincere' or claim you are being dishonest simply based on what answer you give. I won't even claim your attempts to deflect away from this question are somehow signs of a weak argument, though I will honestly be thinking it. All I will do at this point in time is I have granted you a great deal more then the others on this site are willing, most people refuse to enter into a debate where one of the opponents has framed how the debate will occur. So, please, just answer the question....

If we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

If the Flyrant shoots and does not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Struggling with answering a question again?

Forget it people, simply use the yellow triangle.
If that is the way Col_Impact treats a person giving them a chance....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I won't demand you do some action to 'prove you are being sincere' or claim you are being dishonest simply based on what answer you give. I won't even claim your attempts to deflect away from this question are somehow signs of a weak argument, though I will honestly be thinking it. All I will do at this point in time is I have granted you a great deal more then the others on this site are willing, most people refuse to enter into a debate where one of the opponents has framed how the debate will occur. So, please, just answer the question....

If we do not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

If the Flyrant shoots and does not use a Flight Mode have we used only the Gliding Flight mode?

Struggling with answering a question again?

I just don't bother answering pointlessly disruptive ones. If JinxDragon's question is absurd it does not need to be answered.

JinxDragon wrote:
Forget it people, simply use the yellow triangle.
If that is the way Col_Impact treats a person giving them a chance....

Fair play to you, you tried to enter into a reasonable debate.
And I salute you for trying as long as you did.

If someone's argument is strong, it can withstand questions.

No, you don't bother answering any questions, instead you deflect. You gave done for nigh on ten pages now.

Your credibility in debate isn't high right now, I would guess. I suggest you take a step back and reread the impression you give. It still isn't a good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Forget it people, simply use the yellow triangle.
If that is the way Col_Impact treats a person giving them a chance....

Fair play to you, you tried to enter into a reasonable debate.
And I salute you for trying as long as you did.

Agreed, far more patient

Thread lock time? We'll get nowhere with col.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you don't bother answering any questions, instead you deflect. You gave done for nigh on ten pages now.

Your credibility in debate isn't high right now, I would guess. I suggest you take a step back and reread the impression you give. It still isn't a good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Forget it people, simply use the yellow triangle.
If that is the way Col_Impact treats a person giving them a chance....

Fair play to you, you tried to enter into a reasonable debate.
And I salute you for trying as long as you did.

Agreed, far more patient

Thread lock time? We'll get nowhere with col.

I wouldn't expect a philosopher to be popular around Fudamentalists