Switch Theme:

The Stupid Terminator Armour Argument  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Posted By Jeff on 03/22/2006 9:23 PM

all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares. THis is a pretty basic logical fallacy you're commiting here.



Yup, that was badly expained. Put it down top lack of coffee.

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

How about the chainfist upgrade? The armoury clearly states that chainfists may be taken by "models in terminator armour only". The squad entries for both Terminator squads and Terminator Command squads both state that any model may upgrade a power fist to a chainfist for +5 points. So

P1. Only models in Terminator armour may be legally equipped with a chainfist

P2. The squad entries for both the Terminator Squad and the Terminator Command Squad allow any model with a Powerfist to upgrade to a chainfist for +5 points.

Conclusion:The members of both the Terminator Squad and the Terminator Command Squad must be wearing Terminator Armour.

I realize that the closest reading here only covers those squad members that can take the upgrade, but it's as close as I could get in 10 minutes of reading. If some of the squad members have TA, then there isn't anything indicating that they don't all have it. And I guess we'll just keep on sweeping with the Assault Termies for now .

Cheers

*long edit, sorry*

Actually, the closer I read the entry for Terminator Armour the more I agree with insaniac anyway. The entry reads:

"Also known ...blahfluffblah ...Space Marines in Terminator Armour are ...rule... Space Marine Terminators are not ... rule... Terminators may not...rule."

All this in the first parargraph. It's the last one that gets me, the RAW actually says "Terminators may not". I can't see how logic gets you around this (maybe I'm tired). So if "Terminators" may not and "Space Marines in Terminator Armour" may, how are they different? It's all under the entry for Terminator Armour.

Unless you want to argue that the listed rules in the entry for Terminator Armour apply to "models in Terminator armour", except that middle rule about sweeping, which actually applies to "Terminators" but not "models in terminator armour", because they're not the same thing. Hmmm...or maybe by "Terminators" they don't actually mean "Terminators", they mean "Terminators". Bah, I'm going to bed, my head hurts.

Cheers again

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Silverdale, WA

Question: Are Victory points used to determine the victor when playing Space Marines?

Premise 1: Codex rules are considered more specific rules than the broad rules in the BGB.

Premise 2: Specific rules override the broad.

Premise 3: "Victory" is considered the same as "Success"

Premise 4: By bleeding or causing your opponent to bleed a measurable amount you will win. "Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's." pg 52 Codex Space Marines

Conclusion: Victory points are not used to determine the victor when playing Space Marines.

I usually murder a hobbo near the train tracks for luck before most games, but with this new information I should probably be murdering my opponent or myself to really get the edge in future games. Of course, this may only apply when using Marneus Calgar, but any portion of the codex should be applicable to this situation.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By mauleed on 03/22/2006 8:54 PM<br>I would have posted this sooner, but it's fun to see Relic post so much and be proven wrong with so small an argument: (and dakka's been painfully slow)

P1. Models in terminator armor have a 5+ invulnerable save. -SM Codex, page 25 "A model wearing terminator armor have a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save."
P2. Models in terminator armor can move and shoot heavy weapons. -SM Codex, page 25 "Space marines in terminator armor are capable of moving and firing with heavy weapons."
P3. Terminators are equipped with terminator armor - Main Rulebook, page 3 - "Terminator Squad - Elite space marines equipped with the virtually impregnable terminator armor...."
Conclusion: Terminators have a 5+ invulnerable save and can move and shoot their heavy weapons.

Bookmark it people.

Relic, I'll patiently await your statement of defeat. </div><br><br>

Problem with P3: the Space Marine codex is newer than the BGB, and would therefore supercede it.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




Germany

Sorry for not having read the whole thread, but there's another point that does not explicitely state but that does imply that Terminators do indeed wear TDA.
The wargear-entry states that models wearing TDA can move and shoot heavy weapons. Assuming that not even GW does not include absolutely worthless rules in their rulebooks, that implies that Terminators wear TDA. Why? Well, who has access to wargear? ICs. Ever heard of Space Marine ICs that may equip heavy weapons?
I rest my cause.
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




Germany

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Kilkrazy on 03/22/2006 4:04 PM<br><div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By snooggums on 03/22/2006 12:51 PM<br><div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Kilkrazy on 03/22/2006 8:11 AM<br>From my memory of the SM codex, the Terminator squad figures are shown to be wearing Terminator armour. Doesn't that mean they have Terminator armour?</div><br><br>

What I mean is, look at the pictures above each Codex unit entry. The Terminators one shows Terminator suits. The Tac Marines one shows standard SM armour. The Scouts one shows guys in some lesser kind of armounr.

Nothing says these pictures aren't rules. You have to assume either that the whole book is rules or start to make your own decisions as to what is rules or not.

If the picture of Terminators shows marines in Terminator armour, they have Terminator armour.</div><br><br>

Sorry for playing the advocatus diaboli, but that implies - for example - that Devastators are by default equiped with heavy bolters. I also thought about that argument but discarded it when i lokked at the image above the devastator entry.
   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




Spain

Posted By mauleed on 03/22/2006 8:54 PM
P3. Terminators are equipped with terminator armor - Main Rulebook, page 3 - "Terminator Squad - Elite space marines equipped with the virtually impregnable terminator armor...."


Ed, i canĀ“t believe that YOU are using that piece of text as a valid font of rules about Terminators in a YMTC discussion. Use REAL rules intead, man.
Please, read the Glaive company post about space marines and victory points.
Solid gold, Glaive, solid gold

Might makes right. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Bellevue, WA

Glaive Company CO wrote:
stuff


I am so giving up sissy warmachine now and playing 40k again. Screw that heavy metal stuff, I'm going to start stabbing my opponents with modeling tools.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






I'm sorry people, did I miss the section where it said "fluff, not rules" on that page? Sometimes the poorly written rules just take care of themselves, as is this case.

And Janthkin, while the space marine codex is newer, it isn't in conflict with that piece of the space marine codex (since the space marine codex forgot to say anything about what armor the terminators have), so there is no specific vs. general rules issue.




"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/23/2006 1:10 AM
Question: Are Victory points used to determine the victor when playing Space Marines?

Premise 1: Codex rules are considered more specific rules than the broad rules in the BGB.

Premise 2: Specific rules override the broad.

Premise 3: "Victory" is considered the same as "Success"

Premise 4: By bleeding or causing your opponent to bleed a measurable amount you will win. "Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's." pg 52 Codex Space Marines

Conclusion: Victory points are not used to determine the victor when playing Space Marines.

I usually murder a hobbo near the train tracks for luck before most games, but with this new information I should probably be murdering my opponent or myself to really get the edge in future games. Of course, this may only apply when using Marneus Calgar, but any portion of the codex should be applicable to this situation.




Premise 3 is unsupported in the rules. But find a rule that says so and clean up your premises and you have an argument there! Fantastic.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Problem with P3: the Space Marine codex is newer than the BGB, and would therefore supercede it.


Quite so. The quasi-rule you quote in P3 may or may not be an actual rule, but if it is, the entries in the Codex supercede it. These entries list the wargear and weapons that Terminators are equipped with, and Terminator armour is not among them.

Since you haven't attacked my premises or conclusions, I don't need to restate them here. Furthermore, using random text entries in either Codex or main rulebook might lead to all sorts of ridiculous situations, which perhaps you might be happy with, since you play only RAW. For example:

P1. Terminator armour is the best armour a warrior can have. (p25, Codex Marines; "Terminator armour is the best protection a warrior can be equipped with.")
P2. Neophytes are equipped with the best armour a warrior can have. (p11, Codex Marines; "A Neophyte... is armoured in the finest protection a warrior can have.")

Conclusion: Neophytes (which Black Templars can field) are equipped with Terminator armour.

Or, alternatively:

P1. You must represent all weapons and wargear on the model that carries them. (p27, Codex Marines; "... you cannot usually field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear that are not shown on the model.")
P2. Bolters must be sculpted by hand, not bought from the store. (p11, Codex Marines; "Each bolter must be fashioned by hand...")

Conclusion: To represent a bolter on a model, you must sculpt it by hand.

So, in summary, I and others don't agree with your P3. Perhaps you should restate.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






And again, as you say, the space marine codex doesn't say anything about what armor terminators have. So there is no conflict.

The specific only overrides the general when they are in conflict.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




And again, as you say, the space marine codex doesn't say anything about what armor terminators have. So there is no conflict.

The specific only overrides the general when they are in conflict.


They are in conflict, though, although you don't see it. You appear to be confused as to what a permissive ruleset means.

The entries in the Codex are permissive rules - they list the only weapons, wargear, and options that those models are allowed to have. That's how the rules work. Otherwise you can have anything you like because the rules don't say you can't.

In formal notation:

P1. You can only do what the rules say you can do - the rules are permissive. (The closed world assumption.)
P2. The unit entries in the Codex are rules.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex are permissive.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things you can do or have.
P2. The Codex supercedes the main rulebook.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex tell you the only things a model can do or have, regardless of what the main rulebook says.

Clearly, you are of the opinion that the Codex unit entries are not permissive, and that you can have equipment on your models even though the Codex doesn't say you can. We know that's not the case, though. It appears your P3 is invalid.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex tell you the only things a model can do or have, regardless of what the main rulebook says.


Sure, and the unit entry allows a chainfist, and only models in terminator armour may take chainfists.

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Rebuttals:

P1. You can only do what the rules say you can do - the rules are permissive. (The closed world assumption.)
---Agreed
P2. The unit entries in the Codex are rules.
---Agreed
Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex are permissive.
---Agreed.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things you can do or have.
---Agreed
P2. The Codex supercedes the main rulebook.
---False.
Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex tell you the only things a model can do or have, regardless of what the main rulebook says.
---False. Your conclusion doesn't follow from those two premises and one of your premises is false.

This argument, if it were correct, would mean that once any codex exists, you throw the main rulebook in the trash, since it would be universally superceded.

Again, the codex only supercedes the issues that it addresses. Just having one special rule doesn't make all general rules suddenly disappear.




"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




P2. The Codex supercedes the main rulebook.
---False.


Very well then - the Codex entry on what equipment a model can have supercedes any information in the main rulebook on what a model is equipped with. To restate:

P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things a model can do or have.
P2. The unit entries in the Codex list the weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.
P2. Where the unit entries in the Codex conflict with the main rulebook, the Codex takes precedence.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with, even if the main rulebook says otherwise.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things a model can do or have.
---false. This is unsupported (specifically the "only" portion).
P2. The unit entries in the Codex list the weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.
Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.
---A false premise means a false conclusion.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.
---False
P2. Where the unit entries in the Codex conflict with the main rulebook, the Codex takes precedence.
---Agreed
Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with, even if the main rulebook says otherwise.
---False.

You keep trying to create these unsupported (we know they're unsupported because you don't have any page numbers....) premises to prove a point that a single premise of mine, which is supported, is false.

It's failing miserably. Unsupported premises like these can be, and are, simply dismissed if we don't both agree to them and your argument is broken.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Question, why is this important?

Youa re arguing over what to call the armor that the "Terminator Squad" is wearing?

Relic is saying "You can't call it Terminator Armor because the codex doesn't state that they are wearing Terminator Armor".

Mauleed and the rest are saying "don't be stupid."

But try this, check the stat line for those entries and check thier description...

Terminator Squads come stock with a 2+/5+ save and the upgrades associated with Terminator Armor... So who cares what the hell you call it? You get those stats and upgrade options when you pay the point cost per the unit entry.

So fine Relic, they aren't wearing ANY armor since the unit entries don't state that they are. But I am still going to roll a 2+/5+ armor/invulnerable save and smash my opponent around with powerfists, chainfists, lightning claws, Thunderhammers and Heavy Weapons.

You can sit there and argue all day long as to the fact that it isn't "terminator armor" they are wearing and it won't matter. Whatever it is they are wearing, it's some pretty tough stuff!!!

This is a dead horse and a witch hunt.




Can you D.I.G. it? 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things you can do or have.
---Agreed


P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things a model can do or have.
---false. This is unsupported (specifically the "only" portion).


Not only did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive posts, but now you seem to have issue with the idea of a permissive ruleset. For proof of the unit entries being permissive, refer to this argument I made not two posts ago:

P1. You can only do what the rules say you can do - the rules are permissive. (The closed world assumption.)
P2. The unit entries in the Codex are rules.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex are permissive.


You just agreed to this, and it seems completely ironclad, but perhaps you want to change your mind on that again. To be clear, a permissive rule means that you can only do what that rule tells you you can do. If the unit entries in the Codex are permissive, you can only do what they say you can do - no more. You can only have the equipment it lists there, and you can only take the options they say you can.

Don't tell me you're disagreeing with that now. Not only would that be false, but completely bizarre.

The unit entries are rules, and rules are permissive. If you can't agree to that, then not only are you wrong, but also contradicting yourself. The rules only let you do what they say you can do - yes, that has no page number to support it, but that is the closed world assumption, and it is the closed world assumption which you and others repeatedly use, and the assumption that makes the ruleset work.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive; they tell you the only things a model can do or have.
---false. This is unsupported (specifically the "only" portion).


So when you say, 'false', you mean that you believe models can be equipped with all sorts of things their Codex entry doesn't say they can be equipped with, right? Which means that you believe you can do things just because the rules don't say you can't, right?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Perhaps I was mistaken the first time. That's the problem when your argument depends on unsupported premises. All other parties must agree to your premises.

I no longer do.

Try again.

(and you aren't even close. I've quoted a passage in the rulebook that says the exact opposite of one of your premises in your original "terminators don't have terminator armor" argument. And this is the best you can rebutt with? As Jack Black would say, F+)

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch






<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By DaIronGob on 03/23/2006 8:14 AM<br>Question, why is this important?

Youa re arguing over what to call the armor that the "Terminator Squad" is wearing?

Relic is saying "You can't call it Terminator Armor because the codex doesn't state that they are wearing Terminator Armor".

Mauleed and the rest are saying "don't be stupid."

But try this, check the stat line for those entries and check thier description...

Terminator Squads come stock with a 2+/5+ save and the upgrades associated with Terminator Armor... So who cares what the hell you call it? You get those stats and upgrade options when you pay the point cost per the unit entry.

So fine Relic, they aren't wearing ANY armor since the unit entries don't state that they are. But I am still going to roll a 2+/5+ armor/invulnerable save and smash my opponent around with powerfists, chainfists, lightning claws, Thunderhammers and Heavy Weapons.

You can sit there and argue all day long as to the fact that it isn't "terminator armor" they are wearing and it won't matter. Whatever it is they are wearing, it's some pretty tough stuff!!!

This is a dead horse and a witch hunt.



</div><br><br>

It matters because terminator armor has special rules like deepstrikeing that a simple armor save on a model entry does not have.

I agree with relic on the RAW, codex army list supercedes the older rulebook on what a unit is equipped with. I think mauleed is only denying his argument because he doesn't want to admit that in this case the terminators that fluffily obviously wear terminator armor are not equipped with them according to RAW. I am doubltful that anyone would actually counter this in a game, but hey, this is a RAW discussion right?

   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch






<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By mauleed on 03/23/2006 8:35 AM<br>Perhaps I was mistaken the first time. That's the problem when your argument depends on unsupported premises. All other parties must agree to your premises.

I no longer do.

<div><br><br>

So if one person disagrees with your premise that the rule book supercedes the codex list is your premise automatically invalidated?

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






That isn't one of my premises.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Perhaps I was mistaken the first time. That's the problem when your argument depends on unsupported premises. All other parties must agree to your premises.

I no longer do.


What a funny little man you are. I make not one, but three, concise and logical arguments that show why your quoted premise is invalid, and the best you can do is stick your head in the sand and say that you don't agree? For posterity, I'll repeat these arguments.

P1. The rules are permissive, which means that you can only do what they say you can do.
P2. The unit entries in the Codex are rules.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex are permissive, which means that you can only do what they say you can do.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex are permissive, which means that you can only do what they say you can do.
P2. The unit entries in the Codex list the weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with, and these are the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with, because you can only do what the rules say you can do.

P1. The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with.
P2. Where the unit entries in the Codex conflict with the main rulebook, the Codex takes precedence.

Conclusion: The unit entries in the Codex list the only weapons and equipment a model is or can be equipped with, even if the main rulebook says otherwise.

You appear to be having trouble picking holes in this argument, since you contradict yourself and have to resort to simply saying that you don't agree, despite the fact that you have no valid reasons for disagreeing. Let me help you out a little.

To prove these arguments false, you would need to prove one of the following:

1) The rules are not permissive, and you can do things just because they don't say you can't.
2) The unit entries in the Codex are not rules.
3) The unit entries in the Codex do not list the only weapons and equipment those models are allowed to have.
4) A model can be equipped with things that their entry in the Codex doesn't say they can have. (This is basically the same as (3), but it's a different approach.)
5) If the Codex and the main rulebook are in disagreement, the main rulebook takes precedence.

To argue 1), 3) and 4) would essentially require you to state that you believe that the rules aren't permissive, and you can have things just because the rules don't say you can't. You can't come out and say that, because we all know that's wrong, so you have to resort to simply saying that you don't agree, despite the fact that that would be the only reason you might have for not agreeing. So you go ahead and bluster and insist that I'm 'not even close'. I'm cool with that.

By the way, this isn't the way to admit that you're wrong. I know you are capable of it, because you did it so well in the 6 venerable dreads argument, and full credit to you for that. (I mean that genuinely.) I'll help you out again with a few ways to admit it:

1) 'Hmm, it seems I can't prove by the RAW that terminators are equipped with Terminator armour. The only quote I can produce that says it is invalidated by the fact that it's contradicted by the Codex, and it must be contradicted, because there's no way I can logically argue that models are allowed to have things that their Codex entry doesn't say they can have. I've been playing it wrong this whole time. I only play by the actual rules in the book, and even if the rules are unclear, I only take the least advantageous interpretation. That means I've been cheating whenever my Terminators move and shoot heavy weapons, or take their 5+ save.'

2) 'Hmm, it seems I do use a generally accepted convention of Terminators being equipped with Terminator armour. That's okay, because everyone else does the same. I guess generally accepted conventions, like Terminator armour and the Blast Marker rules for Ordnance, are acceptable. Ridiculing people for using widely accepted conventions that aren't contrary to the rules would therefore make me a hypocrite and a poop head.'

3) 'I have no idea what I'm talking about. I can't even keep my own argument straight from one post to the next. I'm talking out my hat. Anderton is actually my secret love child. I'll bow out of this argument now before I make myself look even more foolish.'

Feel free to cut and paste.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By mauleed on 03/23/2006 8:35 AM<br>Perhaps I was mistaken the first time. That's the problem when your argument depends on unsupported premises. All other parties must agree to your premises.

I no longer do.

Try again.

(and you aren't even close. I've quoted a passage in the rulebook that says the exact opposite of one of your premises in your original "terminators don't have terminator armor" argument. And this is the best you can rebutt with? As Jack Black would say, F+)</div><br><br>

Ed,
I know you love to live and die by the rules, but the "I don't agree, therefore you're wrong." as an arguement doesn't really fly. You have to give some sort of credance why you don't agree. Why something is unfounded. If you're going going to counter someone's points, saying "False" doesn't cut the mustard. This just happens to be one of those times where you were caught playing outside the RAW, but not b/c you wanted to cheat, or are a cheater, but b/c the to not play Terminators in Terminator Armoris just plain ridiculous. (Of course so is countin Servitors as wargear for Tech Priests, but that's a different pain in the a$$). Come on, I know you can argue better than, "False" and "You're wrong", throw out some of those rules you have memorized and make Relic eat his words, or just say, "Dang! Whoda thunk it!!"
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Silverdale, WA

I just have to clarify here. I'm surprised you guys gave my last post so much credit. It was actually just a gut reaction to mauleed's post. I personally don't know where the line is drawn between rules and fluff. I can't say that the quote mauleed used is fluff or an actual game rule. The difference is that in mauleed's post there are actual game defined terms like "Terminator." In my post "Success" is an undefined game term. Maybe that's the difference between rules and fluff. Who knows? I'm standing behind Relic here, but only because I believe he is right in the sense of the bigger picture. In other words, the game is probably impossible to play using strict RAW.

That and I can never seem to spell hobo correctly. I watch Lord of the Rings too often I guess.

I'll go with
3) 'I have no idea what I'm talking about. I can't even keep my own argument straight from one post to the next. I'm talking out my hat. Anderton is actually my secret love child. I'll bow out of this argument now before I make myself look even more foolish.'
I think that works best for me.

 
   
Made in jp
The Hammer of Witches





A new day, a new time zone.

i apolegize for not actually having anything to contribute to this splendid little skirmish, but as I was reading, I was just thinking, 'oh all the threads I would love to see Anderton throw his hat into..."

"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..."
Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Pinon Hills, CA

If you start staring at static long enough, you'll start seeing and hearing things that aren't there...

A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters work in the Games Workshop rules department (if there is such a thing!) - they produce the textual equivalent of static from a purely RAW perspective.

"Plant more 'shrooms ladz, wez runn'n outta boyz" - RussWakelin, Grand Inquisitor 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






"I know you love to live and die by the rules, but the "I don't agree, therefore you're wrong." as an arguement doesn't really fly. "

I'm not saying he's wrong because I don't agree. I'm saying one of his premises is false and therefore his argument is false. That's basic logic.

Simply listing a premise doesn't make it true. You have to either support it, prove it, or get the other party to agree that it is correct. He's done none of those.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Tell him why he's wrong, it lends more credit than just saying, "False." If a teacher ever told you, you were wrong, and didn't tell you why, are you going to believe the teacher, just b/c he's an expert on the subject? No you'll want to pick the brain and find out why? At leat I would, but I can be confrontational at times, that's why I love the game so much.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: