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.

Midnight, I agree with your attitude to the game. I too agree about the termie armour, and the nid instantkills.

Yes, perhaps (and notice, I only said perhaps) the RAW doesn't fully support me. But, it doesn't fully support them either.

Thank god games are played outside the dakka forum, wheer common sense can be used.

That said, is common sense actually common?? It makes me think...

Blueloki, there is only disagreement because of idiots like yourself reading something into the rules that isnt there!

Ghaz, im fairly sure, using a little thought, we can all realise what the designers intent was.

No one has answered my question yet: If they only wanted smite to be affected, why didn't they just use the words from the original codex??

Oh no.
I have been insulted by an anonymous intrehnet non-entity.
You have defeated me with your witty yet valourous barb.
I am wounded beyond comprehension.
I die.


[from the afterlife]
How am I the one reading something into the rules when you are the only one claiming that you know the designer's intent and attempting to apply it to a rules argument?

You don't know what the designer's intent is/was, and even if you did you would have no way to prove it. The only thing that we DO have is what is actually literally written, insane or logical. Learn to deal with it and keep your version of 'common sense' and 'designer's intent' confined to your local house rules, thats the only place where they carry any weight.

Unless you happen to be one of the designers, you have no business claiming that you know the designer's intent. You defeat your own argument the moment you claim that you do.

"Thank god games are played outside the dakka forum, wheer common sense can be used."
EXACTLY!
This is not an actual game, this is YMDC where RAW is God and Dakkites are His prophets. Here, we determine what the rules literally say and then we individually determine how they should be played within our local groups.

So calm down, quit with the insults, and play like you've got a pair! (oh crap, wrong game...)
[/from the afterlife]

I know the designers intent through use of common sense. Common sense dictates that fears range is doubled.

You still have not answered my question, so ill write it in capital letters: IF THEY ONLY WANTED SMITE TO BE AFFECTED, WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE WORDING TO "ALL" PSYCHIC POWERS???

Oh, and you cant be in the afterlife, as the afterlife, heaven, hell, and god do not exist.

You have no business claiming you know the designers intent either. By saying the rule is that fears range is not doubled, you are assuming that was the designers intent. When you roll to hit with your space marine, you are making the assumption it was the designers intent that marines were BS4, and it wasnt just a misprint.

Oh, and after your sarcastic remarks about me insulting you, you proceded  to say this:

"so calm down, quit with the insults, and play like you've got a pair".

Pots and kettles mate...

Loki was making a Warmachine pg5 reference, not much of a jab at you.

While I applaud your common sense and it's ability to process the intricate workings of an arcane relic hood and the effect that it does and does not have on the psychic powers of a fictional character wearing it some thousands of years into the future. I will stick with the rules.

And I still contend you are just trying to weasel every possible advantage while ignoring any disadvantage from an unclear set of rules, an unofficial foregin language FAQ, and a game guide on the english website.

Should I put that in caps to help you understand?

But..sticking with the rules is saying that the range of fear of the darkness is 24 inches! Th range is 12 inches around the librarian, which is doubled to 24 inches around the librarian.

Im not trying to weasel every possible advantage. Fury of the ancients has been FAQed. I have the wording from the old codex: space marines, a Librarian tactica on GWs website, and that the range is 12 inches around the librarian. You have yet  to provide a shred of evidence to back up your point.

Hmm, and while you mention putting your post in caps, i notice you didn't answer my question, also in caps.

This is because you cannot think of a possible explanation, and if you admitted that it would follow on that the designers intent was that fear of the darkness is doubled to a 24 inch range. As GW like to copy and paste stuff from old codexes, if you cant provide evidence to explain why they did this, I hold this as clear RAW to say that the hood of hellfire doubles the range of fear of the darkness.

I await some evidence from you that says the contrary.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 3:17 PM
I know the designers intent through use of common sense. Common sense dictates that fears range is doubled.

No, you assume that you have determined the designers intent through deductive logic based on your own biased ideas. Even if your biased ideas 100% correct, and even if your deductive logic was spot on, your 'knowledge' of designer's intent would still be nothing more than an assumption for the simple fact that the designer has not told you what his intent really was.

You still have not answered my question, so ill write it in capital letters: IF THEY ONLY WANTED SMITE TO BE AFFECTED, WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE WORDING TO "ALL" PSYCHIC POWERS???

Consistency is not one of GW's strong points.

Oh, and you cant be in the afterlife, as the afterlife, heaven, hell, and god do not exist.

Neither does common sense. What you claim as 'common sense' is nothing more that an attempt to force you own biased ideas onto another through the false claim that they are supported by the plurality. They are not, and you have no proof to the contrary.

You have no business claiming you know the designers intent either. By saying the rule is that fears range is not doubled, you are assuming that was the designers intent. When you roll to hit with your space marine, you are making the assumption it was the designers intent that marines were BS4, and it wasnt just a misprint.

I, under no circumstances, have ever claimed that I know the designers intent. You misunderstand. I believe that Fear's range IS doubled. However, there is no explicit 'range' characteristic within Fear's description, hence its range remains 0 (or infinity). 0*2=0. You are making an assumption that Fear's range is equal to that of its area of effect. That is an assumption, nothing more, nothing less.

Pots and kettles mate...

Sorry for the confusion, nothing personal. That was indeed a WM reference (it helps if you read the entire line instead of picking bits out of context). Just a failed attempt to add a bit o' levity to the situation. Some of you newer posters take what we say here much too personally.

Its just an internet forum.

Im not biased! Im using a little bit of common sense.

You say consistancy is not one of GWs strong points? Yet copying and pasting text from other codexes is!

And you have destroyed your own arguement by saying that. GW is not consistant. They were not consistant defining "range". The inconsistancy interpretations can be used for any rule in the game. "well, as consistancy is not one of Gws strong points", all the new stuff in the tau empire codex is illegal".

Your been a fool. You dont know the rules properly.

Yea, the range could be 0x2=0. It could also be 10x10= 100, or 500x500= 250000...or even...12x2= 24 inches.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 4:51 PM
Your been a fool. You dont know the rules properly.

Your counter-argument has left me stunned. You, of course, are correct and all other must kneel before Zod.

You continue to rely upon 'common sense', and that is why you fail. Tell me, how many people does it take to agree with an idea in order for it to become 'common sense'? Seriously, I'm curious.

Yea, the range could be 0x2=0. It could also be 10x10= 100, or 500x500= 250000...or even...12x2= 24 inches.

Yes, that is my point. Since it has no explicitly defined 'range', by declaring that any other part of its rules are effected which are not defined explicitly as 'range', you are making an assumption. Not only that, but you are making an assumption that provides yourself with an advantage that has the possibility of being illegal.

In fact, as range aint defined, I think ill say fears range is 40 inches, doubled to 80 inches..yea!

No, of course this is not the case. Its 12 inches, doubled to 24.

Woohoo, who reincarnated this thread, it's been dead for near a week!

I'll reiterate what I said before, I really don't care if Tiggy actually does double the range of FotD to 24", but all I am saying is that if he does, then it means the psychic power would have a range of 12", which means it targets every unit within 12", which means it needs LOS to each unit it targets.  When the rulebook says that all psychic powers follow the normal rules for shooting, that is what that means to me.

But every marine player I have ever met seems to think that all their psychic powers follow all the rules beneficial to them, and ignore all the rules that are disadvantageous to them.  And that is what I really can't stand.

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

- Oaka

"I'll reiterate what I said before, I really don't care if Tiggy actually does double the range of FotD to 24", but all I am saying is that if he does, then it means the psychic power would have a range of 12", which means it targets every unit within 12", which means it needs LOS to each unit it targets. When the rulebook says that all psychic powers follow the normal rules for shooting, that is what that means to me."


since i feel lazy tonight, what he said.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/05/2006 2:33 PM
Ghaz, im fairly sure, using a little thought, we can all realise what the designers intent was.

Unless you're psychic then no, you have no idea that the designer's intent was anything other than what was written in the first place and I for one don't believe in psychics.

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 5:43 PM

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

I tried that on page 2.  It just seems to anger the wild burnthexenos when you tell him he's selectively picking only advantages from any and every possible source.

Posted By Moz on 07/06/2006 7:39 AM

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 5:43 PM

BTW, Burnthexenos, maybe noone has pointed it out to you yet, but you keep using the online GW librarian tactica as evidence for your claim, but you haven't yet realized that it contradicts the Spanish FAQ when it comes to LOS for the power FotA.  Yet you also use the Spanish FAQ as evidence for your claim...

I tried that on page 2.  It just seems to anger the wild burnthexenos when you tell him he's selectively picking only advantages from any and every possible source.

burnthexenos' response was:

"And no, I dont have to take the least advantageous interpretation. Theer is NOTHING in the rulebook that supports this.

Yes, I might be gaining an unfair advantage. But, if I were to take the least advantageous interpretation, I may also be denying myself a completely legal advatage, making the game unfair for me. It can be argued both ways."

He's just a poor sport and will obviously continue to take the interpretation that best suits him, even if it is clear that he is wrong since he would be denying himself an advantage.

Oaka, as I have actually pointed out, the reason I dont accept their interpretation of fury of the ancients, is because it has been FAQed by the spanish.

Actually Ghaz, I do have proof that the intent was to have tiggy double the range. They changed the wording from the old space marine book to include "all" psychic powers. As fear is the only other power apart from smite and vortex of doom which can be affected (and vortex cant be affected if we follow your line of reasoning, as it uses a blast template, and has the same wording as fear), the only reason they have changed the wording is to allow fears range to be doubled. No other explanation. I can also point to the librarian tactica. Now, YOU give me some proof that the intent WASN'T to have fears range doubled, ive given my evidence.

Snooggums, you have ignored the other part of what I said. If I take the least advantageous interpretation I MAY (not "will") be unfairly handicapping myself, and thus giving my opponant an unfair advantage. Of course, if I take the most advantageous interpretation, I MAY (but yet again, not "will") be giving myself an unfair advantage.

Either way you look at it, one side may benefit unfairly, while one loses out. And, in the case of choosing whether me or my opponant loses out, ill go for the WAAC version. We will take the interpretation that best benefits ME!!!

"If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

This is a quote directly from the stickied thread, "How to have an Intelligent Rules", which contains a lot of useful information that may have helped your argument if you had bothered to read it.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 1:50 PM
We will take the interpretation that best benefits ME!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the definition of poor sportsmanship.

"Oaka, as I have actually pointed out, the reason I dont accept their interpretation of fury of the ancients, is because it has been FAQed by the spanish."

"I can also point to the librarian tactica."

You're obviously missing the point we are trying to make that you can't pick which parts of GW literature you like for this argument and ignore the others.  If it is true that the librarian tactica is incorrect on one thing, that casts doubt on everything else it makes a ruling on.

In a court of law, witnesses are dismissed if it is proven that they are known to lie in a similar context.  It follows, then, why those of us who do reject the librarian tactica choose to do so.

I honestly don't know why you find a 'Doesn't require LOS' or 'Tiggy doubles range' choice unreasonable.  Either interpretation will decimate certain armies or, at the least, earn more than its fair share of points back against most armies.  When you combine the two, it tends to get a little bit out of hand unless you are facing another marine army, and we all know how much fun those games tend to be.

- Oaka (who loves facing a droppoding Tiggy with a 24" Fear that doesn't require LOS with his Kroot, seriously, I love unpacking 100+ models and then putting them back into my case ten minutes later)

Phausi, im going to call upon my opponant to be ethical, and take the least advantageous interpretation for him. Otherwise, he may get an unfair advantage...

Seriously, why is it the person taking the action who has to be the ethical one? And dont just say "because its ethical", actually state a reason why. It certainly isnt supported in the codexes or rulebook.

Blue Loki, poor sportsmanship would be my opponant getting an unfair advantage for refusing to let Tiggy double the range.

Oaka, the reason I wont accept that it does require line of sight, is because no where says either way! The rulebook says to do one way, but fears description says to do another. Which one overides which?

And of course, having tiggys fear fequire line of sight, while a normal librarians does not, is just plain silly.

And of course im a marine player, and we marine players always whinge, whine, and moan until we get what we want. And it works too- look at the assault cannon!

But I would add that this "problem" isnt solely limited to marine players.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:31 PM
Phausi, im going to call upon my opponant to be ethical, and take the least advantageous interpretation for him. Otherwise, he may get an unfair advantage...

Seriously, why is it the person taking the action who has to be the ethical one? And dont just say "because its ethical", actually state a reason why. It certainly isnt supported in the codexes or rulebook.

Because the ethics are the responsibility of the person taking the action. The person who kicks the baby is responsible for his actions the same way a person in the game is responsible for deciding which interpretation he plays is ethical. This gets muddied when deciding who is taking an action but in general, if you are doing something that has an effect, you are the one responsible for taking the less advantageous approach. If you take two different sources of info that contradict each other but then use the parts of each that only benefit you, you are being unethical.

Is anyone else getting the feeling that burnthexenos is just pulling a strawman for the MEQ kiddy stereotype? If so, bravo you suckered us in and we are taking you seriously now. If not... I pity your gaming buddies.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:31 PM
Blue Loki, poor sportsmanship would be my opponant getting an unfair advantage for refusing to let Tiggy double the range.

 

Absolutely, just like its unsportsmanlike for a Ref to prevent a striker from scoring while he is offsides, just as it is illegal to attempt to keep a bullet from hitting your head, or to not want to be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike, or to try and prevent a Rapist from teaching you a new kind of love.

The onus of proving the legality of an action before the action takes place is on the one taking the action. It is not your opponent's responsibility to make the decision of legality here, it's all on you. If you are not 100% sure that the action is legal, then you cannot take it and remain a good sportsman (unless, of course, your opponent tells you that its OK to do so). Feel free to actually take the action, RAW cannot physically restrain you, but don't expect a positive result afterward.

And what is this business about proving sportsmanship through RAW? Are you saying that you can do whatever you want because the BGB doesn't tell you that you can't? Don't forget that the BGB doesn't say its illegal to pelt your opponent with 3rd edition metal carnifexes either...

Snooggums, you have pulled that one out of your ass. It could be said that as I kicked the baby, I was responsible for my actions, but it could also be said that it was the parents fault for neglecting their baby in the first place, and putting the baby in a poistion where it could be hurt.

Im not been unethical. If you refuse to let me use 24 inch fear of the darkness, you are cheating, simple as that.

Moz, I said that bit about how all space marine players whine with alot of sarcasm. If you couldn't pick up on that, well, its not my problem!

Blue Loki, the things you describe, such as the footballer been offside, are perfectly sportsmanlike, because its in the rules. What would be unsportsmanlike, is if the ref knowingly prevented that striker from scoring even though he was onside.

The rules support 24 inch fear. Its unsportsmanlike to say that 24 inch fear cant be used.

I have proved that my actions are legal. I have used the old space marine codex, the librarian tactica, and the fact that the range is 12 inches around the librarian, doubled to 24 inches. I have proved my case beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, its up to you to disprove this.

Juts like I point to BS4 to say my marine hits on 3+. If you want my marine to now hit on 5+, you have to prove that this is supported by the rules. Which of course, it is not.

Oh, and the rules system is permissable, so unless the rulebook specifically says you can pelt your opponant with 3rd edition metal carnifexes, you cant.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 3:47 PM
Snooggums, you have pulled that one out of your ass. It could be said that as I kicked the baby, I was responsible for my actions, but it could also be said that it was the parents fault for neglecting their baby in the first place, and putting the baby in a poistion where it could be hurt.

 

That is the most arrogant self serving rationalization I have seen in years.

"It's your fault you didn't stopme from kicking your baby."

Snooggums, while it may seem funny, if we take it back to 40k rules, it is partly their fault. If they had not put their baby near me, I wouldn't ever have been able to kick it, therefore, its their fault. Its simple logic.

I never said they provided the baby, or that they asked you to kick it. That is your mind thinking things that aren't there, kind of like you ethics justification.

Snooggums, in order for a baby to be there to begin with, they would have had to provide the baby- it didn't just fall from outer space!

Phausi, can you point me to a rulebook page that says unethical people are jerks. I for one, have my own system...

Premise 1: People that cheat are jerks
Premise 2: Phausi has stated that tiggy cant double fear of the darkness, therefore is cheating
Conclusion 1: Phausi is a jerk.

As as you have started with the ad hominum attacks, it must be that you are conceding the point to me.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 4:48 PM
Snooggums, in order for a baby to be there to begin with, they would have had to provide the baby- it didn't just fall from outer space!

Phausi, can you point me to a rulebook page that says unethical people are jerks. I for one, have my own system...

Premise 1: People that cheat are jerks
Premise 2: Phausi has stated that tiggy cant double fear of the darkness, therefore is cheating
Conclusion 1: Phausi is a jerk.

As as you have started with the ad hominum attacks, it must be that you are conceding the point to me.

I never once said you can't double FotD. In fact, I never gave my opinion one way or the other. I concede nothing, as I was never trying to make a point

As you did not support my viewpoint, it was only reasonable of me to think you were a cheater, who said that tiggy only has a 12 inch fear of the darkness range.

As the space marines say: There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone that will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

Oh, the humanity.
The lines of communication have broken down. (were they ever really there?)

And now the marines are actually talking to him.
The bloody marines.
The bloody, imaginary, plastic marines.
As you did not support my viewpoint - what a statement, wow. Simply wow.
Cheater, huh? Wow, simply wow.
Killed this debate is.
!