Hidden fist no longer

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.

**Mannahnin**

YankeeBoy, sometimes precision is less important than courtesy, at least when it comes to human interaction.

When the initial poster acts surprised to have found/noticed this rule, he is demonstrating that there are people (including himself) who have overlooked it. This happens, and it happens particularly often with casual players, many of whom are genuinely enjoyable to play with but do not have the rules memorized.

So, when a player says "wow, did you know this was in here?" and you have, in fact, been aware of the rule since Fall of 2004 when the bloody book came out, you have two choices. Sympathize with his having missed it, and observe that it is not very explicitly labeled, perhaps even exaggerrating how easy it is overlook, or make him feel like an idiot.

When talking to a fellow gamer, someone who shares the same interest and hobby as yourself, and who you'd like to keep in the hobby, generally the former option is to be preferred. When you go on at length about how obviousy and easy to find it is, you are choosing the latter approach, to everyone's general detriment.

**Ozymandias**

Posted By YankeeBoy on 04/18/2007 8:26 AM
So, Hellfury, just to be clear.

7. Post form you, Hellfury, in which you claim that I "read something more into what you said" and then you state what you meant/what you believe hidden means. (page 2, post #12)
8. Post from me, wherein I explain how I haven't read anything into your posts, rather, I explain why "hidden" is inaccurate, that it does not mean what you state it means.

How is disagreement, clarification, and correction immediately euqate to pugnacious to you? How does suggest that one actually wants to fight when one is engaged in a discussion? Despite the tone of your comments, I haven't ONCE been impolite to you, nor anyone else. That's certainly NOT pugnacious. As for pedantic, how is this an insult?

Pedantic: scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous

It's always been my intention to be as accurate, precise, informed, correct, and literate as possible. In other words, I hold high standards. Certainly these are qualities that we should all hold in high regard and strive for?

I'm sorry, posts don't form Hellfury. I'm sure he has a mother and a father. And I don't even know what euqate means, sounds latin in origin.

Apparently, your high standards only apply to innocent posters bringing up something they thought was interesting and those saying you need to chill.

And I didn't say the rule was new, I said it was "new to 4th edition." Which is completely true, if you are going to attack people's positions, at least make sure you read them too.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**blue loki**

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/18/2007 12:19 PM
I'm sorry, posts don't form Hellfury. I'm sure he has a mother and a father.

I disagree. I imagine that the spontaneous birth of Hellfury did indeed occur due to the conjunction of two stupendous posts, or Wonder Posts if you will.

I can see it now.....

Wonder Post powers, ACTIVATE!

Form of HELLFURY! >

Form of TEARS EMOTE!

Ah crap. I hate you sis...

**AoD**

Man this thread went to crap. How about we talk about torrent of fire instead of whatever is going on in here?

**ColonelEllios**

Yankeeboy seems to be the only one here interested (other than OP) in what the rules actually say.

Someone "overlooking" this rule is an indication of someone with incredibly bad memory, or poor reading comprehension.

Personally, when 4th edition came out, I read and re-read the main body of rules at least 5 times in about 3 months, between games and during.

It is understandable that this could indeed be missed while reading through the rules, but after the book has been out for so long there really is no excuse for an entire group of gamers to have not had a single member find this rule and bring it up.

Unless, of course, said group of gamers is incredibly "casual," as in the extreme, that they haven't bothered to play or review the 4th edition rules until now.

Since the OP clarified that "they've been playing this way for [a long while]" it is reasonable to assume some sort of deficiency on the part of him or the group he plays with.

It is an unavoidable assumption to make if you're very familiar with the rules. How you react to the fact has to do with public courtesy, and I can tell you from experience that about 60% of the gamers in this hobby have a complete disregard or contempt for "public courtesy."

Pointing out that someone is "mentally deficient" is not or should not be offensive. Saying that someone is a "slow" by comparison, has an obvious taint of offense and venom to it. I didn't detect much "venom" coming from Yakeeboy, and he's been incredibly logical, thorough, and concise througout this thread. If you can't see that, you have no business posting here, and chances are that you're a "reactionary moron."

**Saldiven**

By all that is holy, if I have the poor judgment to so much as accidentally click on this thread again, I give Yakface and Mauleed permission to gouge out my eyes with unsharpened pencils.

Has anything of worth been written since like post number 4?

Sal.

**coredump**

BWAHAHAHAHAA.....

Saldiven is my new hero!!!!!

**Mannahnin**

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/19/2007 10:20 AM
Yankeeboy seems to be the only one here interested (other than OP) in what the rules actually say.

Ridiculous. Most of us are well aware of it. The rules discussion is well-covered ground. The only NEW element to this discussion is YB's (and your own) extreme condescension towards your fellow gamers, who have committed the evidently terrible crime of not reading the rules thoroughly.

The discussion at hand is- when you encounter such a lapse in a fellow gamer, do you castigate him for it and make him feel stupid, or do you use commiseratory language and express sympathy while educating him?

I think the choice should be obvious for anyone possessing a modicum of manners.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/19/2007 10:20 AM

Someone "overlooking" this rule is an indication of someone with incredibly bad memory, or poor reading comprehension.

It is an unavoidable assumption to make if you're very familiar with the rules. How you react to the fact has to do with public courtesy, and I can tell you from experience that about 60% of the gamers in this hobby have a complete disregard or contempt for "public courtesy."

Pointing out that someone is "mentally deficient" is not or should not be offensive. Saying that someone is a "slow" by comparison, has an obvious taint of offense and venom to it. I didn't detect much "venom" coming from Yakeeboy, and he's been incredibly logical, thorough, and concise througout this thread. If you can't see that, you have no business posting here, and chances are that you're a "reactionary moron."

Ellios, if you can't see how insulting and contemptuous you are being, you need to take a break from posting and go do something else.

"Pointing out that someone is "mentally deficient" is not or should not be offensive. "

Let me quote that again, for posterity.

"Pointing out that someone is "mentally deficient" is not or should not be offensive. "

Amazing.

**methoderik**

Wow, sorry Hellfury, but you just got owned by YankeeBoy.

I hate to admit it though, I was one of the ones who had overlooked (probably more forgot) that rule. Now if I can just remember for my next game.

**Flagg07**

Has anything of worth been written since like post number 4?

No

**Blackmoor**

The rule is very easy to overlook. Since it was not in 3rd edition, and new to 4th, a lot of long time players don't know about it.

Now when I do a number of wounds equal to the number of models in the squad, I always have to look up the rule to see if I have to equal the number of models, or go over it. It takes me forever to find the rule, and I know about where it is, but there is nothing that makes it stand out.

When I try to use the rule in assault, to a man, they look at me as if I have grown a third head, and insist that there is no such rule.

**syr8766**

Remember when we all used to fight over whether or not terminators wore terminator armor, or whether tau pathfinders get their devilfish in omega games?

Do you remember when arguments were made with things like math to point out actual, meaningful aspects of the game, including developing new uses for units and wargear, new tactics?

Do you remember when you weren't allowed to be a complete punch-monkey assclown, and a mod would actually shut you down for misbehavior?

Wow.

**Broon**

"I", the awesome "Yankeeboy", messageboard "King" and "quotation mark mega-fan" do hereby "declare" myself to have a "massive tool". And anus.

**Centurian99**

Pass the rusty spoons...

**Hellfury**

Posted By YankeeBoy on 04/18/2007 8:26 AM
So, Hellfury, just to be clear.

1. original poster writes suggesting that the "hidden powerfist"/toreent of fir is new/novel, etc. (post #1)
2. I subesquently post stating that this isn't new, rather that it's right ther ein the rulebook, open for anyone that cares to read it. (post #7)
3. You then state that. no, it is a "hidden" rule (post #8)
3. I explain how it is, in fact, not hidden at all. (page 2, post #2)
4. My next post clarifies that I'm not confusing the "hidden powerfist" scenario with your use of "hidden" on the first page. (page 2, post #5)
5. My next post reinterates that the subject is not confusion re: the two versions of hidden used within the thread. (in response to ATI's explantion of "hidden" fists). Then goes on to defend against accusations that I have "insulted" or attempted to "insult" by posting. I also explain that anecdotal stories re:said rule do not equal proof that the rule is "hidden" (from Mannahnin) (page 2, post #8)
6. Posts from Coredump, ATI, etc. angry/annoyed over my explanation.
7. Post form you, Hellfury, in which you claim that I "read something more into what you said" and then you state what you meant/what you believe hidden means. (page 2, post #12)
8. Post from me, wherein I explain how I haven't read anything into your posts, rather, I explain why "hidden" is inaccurate, that it does not mean what you state it means.

How is disagreement, clarification, and correction immediately euqate to pugnacious to you? How does suggest that one actually wants to fight when one is engaged in a discussion? Despite the tone of your comments, I haven't ONCE been impolite to you, nor anyone else. That's certainly NOT pugnacious. As for pedantic, how is this an insult?

Pedantic: scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous

It's always been my intention to be as accurate, precise, informed, correct, and literate as possible. In other words, I hold high standards. Certainly these are qualities that we should all hold in high regard and strive for?

Yankeeboy, youre absolutely correct. My usage of the word "hidden" was not well thought out. There could have been a couple better choices right off the top of my head. Communicating correctly and concisely is what everyone should strive for. I'll use a common cliche: "To mean what you say and say what you mean" sums it up nicely.

But you are wrong about pedantic. I will be pedantic for a moment to fully define what it is. For no other reason than to be pedantic.

To be pedantic is to be obsessively and overly concerned about trivial details than is normally healthy for a common civil dicourse. To flaunt ones knowledge to show superiority to whom you speak with. Ostentatiously overbearing.

In short, you come off as a pretensious snob. Boy, those guys are a blast at parties! The anal-retentive attitude gets all the chics! You argue semantics of a quite trivial slip in verbage. You jump on it like youre H.P. Lovecraft (Another english language snob) and because its so trivial, it makes you appear trivial for arguing the point.

I hardly see Pedantic/Didactic nomers as an endearing quality. Where you see "scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous" most other people see "Anal-retentive, overzealous, pretentious, snobbish" and view such "qualities" to be quite repulsive.

But hey, if it gets you laid/more money/power over kids/a sense of self worth, more power to you.

To be further pedantic, you dont have to engage in ad hominem to be pugnacious. You insult the intelligence of anyone who reads your posts if you think your tone was anything other than condescending.

But maybe I am just (to quote Ellios) a "Reactionary Moron"