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 wrote:I see what you mean, but I don't think the usual military sense of "friendly fire" quite applies here. Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

What exactly is the term referring to then, the social relationships between every model on the board?
What if in my army's fluff my boyz don't like their grots, can I fire burnas through them because they aren't friends?

It really has to refer to the military sense, which includes the model doing the firing.

Mannahnin wrote:I see what you mean, but I don't think the usual military sense of "friendly fire" quite applies here. Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

I gave the example of friendly fire just as an example of military usage of friendly. I could just as easily have said friendly territory, friendly forces or friendly lines.

Kilkrazy wrote:In military terminology "friendly" means "one's own side, not enemy". (Viz. Friendly fire.)

In which case the hull of your own tank is a friendly model.

I am not arguing that a tank should not be able to fire its own weapons safely.

I just oppose the use of distorted grammar to support a rule interpretation.

"Ones own side" is saying "On the side of"... same thing... Again, it is all about the relationship... Its really quite simple and clear grammatical rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitary_relation

will give you an intro to it, to really understand it, please find an intro to logic class or the relevant textbook.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I see what you mean, but I don't think the usual military sense of "friendly fire" quite applies here. Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

I gave the example of friendly fire just as an example of military usage of friendly. I could just as easily have said friendly territory, friendly forces or friendly lines.

Certainly, all of which are indicative of the same concept but none of which are used to refer to oneself. Right now the grammatical point visavismeyou has raised appears to be an elegant solution to the RaW paradox of template weapons being fired from a vehicle and overlapping the vehicle itself. Pity it doesn’t solve the issue of firing from a hatch. Oh well, everyone I’ve ever met plays that it’s allowed anyway. It would just be nice to have a clean resolution to the RaW conflict.

visavismeyou wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In military terminology "friendly" means "one's own side, not enemy". (Viz. Friendly fire.)

In which case the hull of your own tank is a friendly model.

I am not arguing that a tank should not be able to fire its own weapons safely.

I just oppose the use of distorted grammar to support a rule interpretation.

"Ones own side" is saying "On the side of"... same thing... Again, it is all about the relationship... Its really quite simple and clear grammatical rules.

I'm confused, are you arguing with yourself now? Are you saying that a model is not 'on the side of' the side it is fighting for?

Mannahnin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I see what you mean, but I don't think the usual military sense of "friendly fire" quite applies here. Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

I gave the example of friendly fire just as an example of military usage of friendly. I could just as easily have said friendly territory, friendly forces or friendly lines.

Certainly, all of which are indicative of the same concept but none of which are used to refer to oneself. Right now the grammatical point visavismeyou has raised appears to be an elegant solution to the RaW paradox of template weapons being fired from a vehicle and overlapping the vehicle itself. Pity it doesn’t solve the issue of firing from a hatch. Oh well, everyone I’ve ever met plays that it’s allowed anyway. It would just be nice to have a clean resolution to the RaW conflict.

Thanks, also, if anyone still has a problem with this solution, please refer to your own dictionary and look up the word "Friend", it should come out to something similar to:

Friend:
"a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard."
"a person who is on good terms with another;"

Furthermore:
Another:
"different; distinct; of a different period, place, or kind:"

Thus, a friend is an individual different than the subject at hand; as I said, "FrendOf(A, B)" Makes sense while "FriendOf(A, A)" does not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In military terminology "friendly" means "one's own side, not enemy". (Viz. Friendly fire.)

In which case the hull of your own tank is a friendly model.

I am not arguing that a tank should not be able to fire its own weapons safely.

I just oppose the use of distorted grammar to support a rule interpretation.

"Ones own side" is saying "On the side of"... same thing... Again, it is all about the relationship... Its really quite simple and clear grammatical rules.

I'm confused, are you arguing with yourself now? Are you saying that a model is not 'on the side of' the side it is fighting for?

Again, you're misunderstanding me. On the side of requires someone else to be on the same side as:

"OnTheSideOf(A, B)" has a truth value "OnTheSideOf(A, A)" does not have a truth value; it does not compute in the English language, it is like dividing by zero; 1/5 has a value, 1/0 does not.

Furthermore, "OnTheSideOf(A, B, C, D)" Has a truth value too.

Visavismeyou, I'm sorry, but that's complete . When you construct a formal logic system which declares that a commonly used construction is invalid, your formal logic system is worthless.

It's especially worthless when one can just as easily construct a formal logic system in which OnTheSideOf(A,A) is true.

Considering that the invocation of dictionary definitions is already in violation of the tenets of YMDC (point 6), I think by extension attempting to use formal logic to argue about dictionary definitions would be included.

Wouldn't ever guy with a flamer on the field instantly set himself on fire every time he shot?

Sounds like a bad job to me.

solkan wrote:Visavismeyou, I'm sorry, but that's complete . When you construct a formal logic system which declares that a commonly used construction is invalid, your formal logic system is worthless.

It's especially worthless when one can just as easily construct a formal logic system in which OnTheSideOf(A,A) is true.

umm... there are so many errors in what you just said I cant even start...

I'll just say: "Dont judge a book by its cover", you don't know what you're talking about, so please familiarize yourself with it before you judge it.

Oh and I didn't construct this... Aristotle did and its been refined throughout history...

ductvader wrote:Wouldn't ever guy with a flamer on the field instantly set himself on fire every time he shot?

Sounds like a bad job to me.

No, because the guy holding the flamer is not UNDER the template.

here we go, I have an irrefutable proof ^^

on facebook, can you friend yourself?!

hahhah! Try to beat that one!

Solkan has raised a valid point in that dictionary definitions are an argument to be used with caution if at all in rules debates. Often the definitions raised are not directly applicable to the context of the argument, such as wargames rules in general or the way given words are used in 40k specifically.

That said, where common usage in context doesn’t conflict with regular English, regular English should indeed be used. I believe visavis has correctly noted that “friendly”, both in a dictionary and a military sense, requires a second party. You’re never friendly with yourself.

visavismeyou wrote:here we go, I have an irrefutable proof ^^

on facebook, can you friend yourself?!

hahhah! Try to beat that one!

On Dakka, can you friend yourself?

The answer is Yes, btw.

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:here we go, I have an irrefutable proof ^^

on facebook, can you friend yourself?!

hahhah! Try to beat that one!

On Dakka, can you friend yourself?

The answer is Yes, btw.

OH GOD YOU GOT ME! lol I just friended myself on Dakka... You win Gwar... :(

I'll go sulk

Mannahnin wrote:That said, where common usage in context doesn’t conflict with regular English, regular English should indeed be used. I believe visavis has correctly noted that “friendly”, both in a dictionary and a military sense, requires a second party. You’re never friendly with yourself.

I have to raise an objection to this point. According to the dictionary open in front of me, friendly, in the military sense: "(of troops or equipment) of, belonging to, or in alliance with one's own forces". It is nonsensical to claim that a person does not belong to, or is not a part of their own side.

I, for one, am my own friend.

solkan wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That said, where common usage in context doesn’t conflict with regular English, regular English should indeed be used. I believe visavis has correctly noted that “friendly”, both in a dictionary and a military sense, requires a second party. You’re never friendly with yourself.

I have to raise an objection to this point. According to the dictionary open in front of me, friendly, in the military sense: "(of troops or equipment) of, belonging to, or in alliance with one's own forces". It is nonsensical to claim that a person does not belong to, or is not a part of their own side.

I, for one, am my own friend.

again... it all goes back to the very basics, "AllianceWith" is a 2 place predicate....

AllianceWith(a,b) has a truth value
AllianceWith(a,a) does not have a truth value


i want to clarify this what Truth Value means, a truth value means it can be either true or false, in our language, we have a bivalent truth value system; if something does not have a truth value then it cannot be true, nor can it be false, it is sort of like dividing by zero, you cannot ask the question, "What is the answer to the problem: one divided by zero?", that question does not have an answer and the statement "One divided by zero is 42" does not have a truth value; it is neither true nor false, it is gibberish. Just like saying: "I am my own friend" is complete gibberish, that statement implies difference where none exists, formally, it is a "category error".

solkan wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That said, where common usage in context doesn’t conflict with regular English, regular English should indeed be used. I believe visavis has correctly noted that “friendly”, both in a dictionary and a military sense, requires a second party. You’re never friendly with yourself.

I have to raise an objection to this point. According to the dictionary open in front of me, friendly, in the military sense: "(of troops or equipment) of, belonging to, or in alliance with one's own forces". It is nonsensical to claim that a person does not belong to, or is not a part of their own side.

I, for one, am my own friend.

No, you’re really not. A soldier certainly is friendly to the army they’re a member of. And vice versa. But that’s two parties- the soldier, and his army. You are friendly to your forces. You are an ally to your allies. But you’re not an ally or a friend to yourself.

There's a modeling solution to this. Take the pintle-mounted bolter piece instead of the combi-flamer and then take a burna from the ork set, detach that long burna barrel, and mount it atop the bolter. Believe it or not, this creates a combi-flamer that is just long enough to poke out over the top of the rhino in any direction other than straight backward, assuming you mount it in the center of the rhino.

I don't know if this is legal, but since you pay points for the flamer, I don't see any reason that modeling it to be firable wouldn't be.

MekanobSamael wrote:There's a modeling solution to this. Take the pintle-mounted bolter piece instead of the combi-flamer and then take a burna from the ork set, detach that long burna barrel, and mount it atop the bolter. Believe it or not, this creates a combi-flamer that is just long enough to poke out over the top of the rhino in any direction other than straight backward, assuming you mount it in the center of the rhino.

I don't know if this is legal, but since you pay points for the flamer, I don't see any reason that modeling it to be firable wouldn't be.

As a side note: I think this entire thread is overdone. Seriously, people...how badly do you want to be 'in the right' about whether plastic toy soldiers are lighting themselves on fire or not?

@ MekanobSamael: You bring up a good point. Some people might pull the "modelling for advantage" card by giving yourself an addtional 1/10th of an inch. Personally, I don't mind at all.

Would you allow me to make the barrel of the railgun on my Hammerhead 28" though? You'd still have to fire to the hull, but it'd give my railgun a 100" range...yes please!

visavismeyou wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In military terminology "friendly" means "one's own side, not enemy". (Viz. Friendly fire.)

In which case the hull of your own tank is a friendly model.

I am not arguing that a tank should not be able to fire its own weapons safely.

I just oppose the use of distorted grammar to support a rule interpretation.

"Ones own side" is saying "On the side of"... same thing... Again, it is all about the relationship... Its really quite simple and clear grammatical rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitary_relation

will give you an intro to it, to really understand it, please find an intro to logic class or the relevant textbook.

Thank you very much, Mr Logic. I expect that next you will be informing us that peanuts are not nuts and therefore people with nut allergies should not hesitate to eat them.

You must know that the human mind and languages do not work according to the rules of logic, that is why it had to be invented.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:

MekanobSamael wrote:There's a modeling solution to this. Take the pintle-mounted bolter piece instead of the combi-flamer and then take a burna from the ork set, detach that long burna barrel, and mount it atop the bolter. Believe it or not, this creates a combi-flamer that is just long enough to poke out over the top of the rhino in any direction other than straight backward, assuming you mount it in the center of the rhino.

I don't know if this is legal, but since you pay points for the flamer, I don't see any reason that modeling it to be firable wouldn't be.

As a side note: I think this entire thread is overdone. Seriously, people...how badly do you want to be 'in the right' about whether plastic toy soldiers are lighting themselves on fire or not?

@ MekanobSamael: You bring up a good point. Some people might pull the "modelling for advantage" card by giving yourself an addtional 1/10th of an inch. Personally, I don't mind at all.

Would you allow me to make the barrel of the railgun on my Hammerhead 28" though? You'd still have to fire to the hull, but it'd give my railgun a 100" range...yes please!

Just do what everyone has always done and let the tank shoot its flamethrower without regard to the official template rule.

Plus, I think that this is one of those times when we really do know what the RaI is...

Admit it Gwar!!

Che-Vito wrote:

MekanobSamael wrote:There's a modeling solution to this. Take the pintle-mounted bolter piece instead of the combi-flamer and then take a burna from the ork set, detach that long burna barrel, and mount it atop the bolter. Believe it or not, this creates a combi-flamer that is just long enough to poke out over the top of the rhino in any direction other than straight backward, assuming you mount it in the center of the rhino.

I don't know if this is legal, but since you pay points for the flamer, I don't see any reason that modeling it to be firable wouldn't be.

As a side note: I think this entire thread is overdone. Seriously, people...how badly do you want to be 'in the right' about whether plastic toy soldiers are lighting themselves on fire or not?

@ MekanobSamael: You bring up a good point. Some people might pull the "modelling for advantage" card by giving yourself an addtional 1/10th of an inch. Personally, I don't mind at all.

Would you allow me to make the barrel of the railgun on my Hammerhead 28" though? You'd still have to fire to the hull, but it'd give my railgun a 100" range...yes please!

There's a distinction between modeling for advantage and modeling for functionality. My suggestion allows the model to do exactly what it's built to do. Your suggestion would improve something's capabilities beyond what they are listed as. If you brought that model to a tournament you would be laughed out of the store.

Kilkrazy wrote:Thank you very much, Mr Logic. I expect that next you will be informing us that peanuts are not nuts and therefore people with nut allergies should not hesitate to eat them.

Peanuts are not nuts. Peanut, or groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), is a species in the legume "bean" family (Fabaceae). Therefore, people with NUT allergies should have no qualms with eating them.

People with Peanut allergies however should stay away from them.

Alpharius wrote:Plus, I think that this is one of those times when we really do know what the RaI is...

Admit it Gwar!!

Nope. For all we know the RaW could be 100% the Intent. Until such time as an Errata is issued, confirming that it was an error, it is impossible to know what the RaI is.

To all you people who complain about this, just stick the fething thing on the fething end of the fething gun and fething call it a fething day!

Also, just a little thing about ML, shouldn't they have backblast?

JSK-Fox wrote:To all you people who complain about this, just stick the fething thing on the fething end of the fething gun and fething call it a fething day!

Also, just a little thing about ML, shouldn't they have backblast?

ML Can't have Backblast. If they did, how could the Empra backflip off a Razorback turning into a Land Raider while shooting it at Female Half Eldar Space Marines?

Aren't the only rules for firing a flamer in the "infantry" section of the book?

(if true, then vehicles wouldn't be able to fire them anyways since there are no rules for how they work)

visavismeyou wrote:"Friendly" means "Friend of"

"Friend of" is a 2 place predicate meaning "A is the friend of B" This cannot be used to say that "A is friend of A". Thus, a flame template coming from a vehicle can be placed over the vehicle's own hull because it does not violate this rule. I know you guys are all being facetious, but still, the rule as written is logically correct and logically allows a flame template to be placed over the hull of the firing vehicle.

So, just to clarify, you also think that psychic powers which can be cast on "friendly" units or models cannot be cast on the psyker?

I think that since vehicles are either armed with template weapons and/or have the option to add them is a fairly large indicator of the RaI on this issue, even if the RaW causes some people fits.

visavismeyou wrote:Oh god, not this again.

Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template so
that its narrow end is touching the base of the model
firing it and the rest of the template covers as many
models as possible in the target unit without touching
any friendly models.

"Friendly" means "Friend of"

"Friend of" is a 2 place predicate meaning "A is the friend of B" This cannot be used to say that "A is friend of A". Thus, a flame template coming from a vehicle can be placed over the vehicle's own hull because it does not violate this rule. I know you guys are all being facetious, but still, the rule as written is logically correct and logically allows a flame template to be placed over the hull of the firing vehicle.

Mannahnin wrote:No, he’s explaining that grammatically the concept of friend requires a second party. That one cannot be friends with or friendly with oneself.

Mannahnin wrote:Solkan has raised a valid point in that dictionary definitions are an argument to be used with caution if at all in rules debates. Often the definitions raised are not directly applicable to the context of the argument, such as wargames rules in general or the way given words are used in 40k specifically.

That said, where common usage in context doesn’t conflict with regular English, regular English should indeed be used. I believe visavis has correctly noted that “friendly”, both in a dictionary and a military sense, requires a second party. You’re never friendly with yourself.

I have been of the same opinion as visavismeyou and Mannahnin since the first RAW debate involving vehicles firing templates began, though I have never been able to state the argument in a coherent and succinct manner. I tip my hat to both of you.

Kilkrazy wrote:Thank you very much, Mr Logic. I expect that next you will be informing us that peanuts are not nuts and therefore people with nut allergies should not hesitate to eat them.

You must know that the human mind and languages do not work according to the rules of logic, that is why it had to be invented.

Sounds like someone is grumpy... Slinging the insults at someone who is proving you wrong is not the way to go Kilkrazy.

Anyway, just because you dont understand something does not mean it is wrong. About the human mind and language!? Wow, you just completely blundered there, the human mind and language both operate based on logic... Logic is not an invention it has been discovered... Just like gravity, for millions of years everything obeyed the law of gravity without knowing what it was, same with logic... Our concept of logic has been constructed by secondary observations just like the law of gravity so we had a few things wrong for a little while, but now we're getting closer and closer to fully understanding it, just like gravity.

I really suggest you take an iTunesU course on intro to logic or enroll in your closest community college to find out just how laughably wrong you are; but seeing as how you leap before you look, I doubt you'll do that.

Kilkrazy wrote:Just do what everyone has always done and let the tank shoot its flamethrower without regard to the official template rule.

Ya, I see that you're accustomed to ignoring things that you dont understand, i'll stop beating simple 3rd grade grammar rules over your head now, I'm sorry that I have pointed out how you've embarrassed yourself.