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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

Or, if you turn it around, no vehicle moving flat out may fire weapons, except those with Aerial Assault. Read that way, Aerial Assault is more specific.

Except you can't turn it around.
Aerial Assault applies to Cruising Speed.
Moving Flat Out is just like Cruising Speed. (you can fire all weapons)
Moving Flat Out prevents you from firing. (you can fire no weapons)

How about:

Moving flat out prevents you from firing (you can fire no weapons).
Moving Flat Out is just like Cruising Speed. (you still cannot fire weapons)
Aerial Assault allows you to fire weapons after moving at cruising speed. (You can fire all weapons)

It applies at cruising speed.
Then you go beyond cruising speed, adding additional rules. One of those additional rules overrides AA.

Plus, Flat Outs restriction is still more specific. It applies to flat out only. AA applies to Cruising Speed and by extension flat out.

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff. Not all vehicles moving cruising are moving flat out.

rigeld2 wrote:It applies at cruising speed.
Then you go beyond cruising speed, adding additional rules. One of those additional rules overrides AA.

Plus, Flat Outs restriction is still more specific. It applies to flat out only. AA applies to Cruising Speed and by extension flat out.

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff. Not all vehicles moving cruising are moving flat out.

Plus what stuff, exactly? Because IIRC it doesn't actually add anything that Cruising Speed (for a regular vehicle) didn't already say. (i.e. can't fire weapons).

Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

The latter is new.

The former is literally stated to be "just like cruising speed for non-fast vehicles" which is the phrase he was citing.

I think the burna bommer is stupid, it is ridiculously expensive, and is not even that good!

Greenskinchris wrote:I think the burna bommer is stupid, it is ridiculously expensive, and is not even that good!

Welcome to Dakka.

We are happy that you have joined.


A bit of constructive critism; It is generally considered good form to actually read a thread to its end before posting.

A thread can go through a transformation as it unfolds.
This means that the subject being discussed in the beginning of the thread might not be the same as in the end.
It is somewhat frowned upon to bring up "past" subjects in a given thread.

If you don't feel like reading a lot of posts in a thread then at least read the last page or two to see where the thread "is at", so to speak.

That way you avoid looking stupid by bringing up issues that has already be discussed to death, or commenting on issues that is completely unrelated to the nature of the thread, like you happened to do in this case.

Just a piece of friendly advice coupled with a wish for you to enjoy your time here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets. Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less. How is this confusing to you....... Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance. Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such, I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....


Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

Also, this is page 71 and only skimmers get the 4+save......I posted the actual rules for mocing flat out and cruising speed already, yet they are still ignored.....

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

Page 70 "Moving Fast Vehicles"
Flat out is indeed counted as moving cruising with a few extra notes (increased speed, can't shoot... etc)
There are things in the rules like pasengers can't shoot out of a transport that moves at Cruising speed. Doesn't mention Flat Out, but as Flat Out is a type of Cruising the restriction applies.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less. How is this confusing to you..

You forgot an important part of the RPJ rule. You ignore that inch for penalties.

Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

RPJ allows it. It does so by allowing me to ignore 1" of movement when it comes to penalties.

If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance. Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such, I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

What rules support do you have stating that you can't be both? Any?

RPJ allows me to count as moving 1" less for penalties. There is no permission to ignore that inch for bonuses.

Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

The word trade doesn't appear on the page. Are you going to assert that RPJ does nothing because the word penalty is not defined? Do you really want to go down that road?

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

Also, this is page 71 and only skimmers get the 4+save......I posted the actual rules for mocing flat out and cruising speed already, yet they are still ignored.....

Actually it's page 70. And yes, it's only skimmers - my bad.

grendel083 wrote:

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

Page 70 "Moving Fast Vehicles"
Flat out is indeed counted as moving cruising with a few extra notes (increased speed, can't shoot... etc)
There are things in the rules like pasengers can't shoot out of a transport that moves at Cruising speed. Doesn't mention Flat Out, but as Flat Out is a type of Cruising the restriction applies.

Fair enough.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets.

Yes, you have stated it. Of course, you havent actually, in any thread, provided any relevant rules that actually STATE this, you have just asserted it without any written rules.

Breaking the tenets of the forum. Again.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less.

...for the purposes of penalties. How is it so difficult for you to read, and use, the rule correctly? Its not difficult. Its not a very long rule, its written in very simple, very plain English. Stop ignoring parts of the rule because you either find it inconvenient (as it destroys the entire basis for your "argument" - in quotes as you havent actually provided any rules, just an assertion, which isnt an argument in and of itself) or you just keep missing its' presence.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: How is this confusing to you.......

It isnt. You're just not actually following the rule, which is presumably why you appear confused, and cannot provide any rules - youre not actually reading the RPJ rule in its entirety.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

THe RPJ rule lets you count as moving 1" less, changing the speed classification if necessary, for the purposes of penalties for that 1". There's your rule.

Please provide a rule, for the 90th time of asking, that allows you to ignore BONUSES from that 1". Note: You will need to actually use the RPJ rule for this, and you may struggle as it doesnt mention bonuses, but give it a go

Page and paragraph where you can ignore the BONUSES of the 1", or concede as you have failed to back up your argument as required, yet again, in the tenets of this forum.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance.

We've provided the rule. RPJ. Now actually provide a rule requiring you to only ever occupy a single speed zone, specifically stating such. NOTHING you have quoted so far actually says anything like this, you've just made a bunch of baseless, ruleless assertions over and over and over and over and over.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such,

Ah, so you're now speaking for me? Thanks for that!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

RPJ. RPJ. You see that rule that says you count as 1" less for the purposes of penalties? You may have missed it, it wasnt quoted that often in this thread. That says FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you count as moving 1" less - so FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you have moved 12", and can shoot. Now, as you ONLY have permission to count 1" less FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES and not bonuses when it comes to working out if you get a cover save, whcih is a bonus, you get a cover save

So, your "PERIOD" ignores the rules. Again. As you have consistently done all through this thread.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

What, the rule that doesnt actually say that. You know, the logical fallacy that was dealtw itht the first time it was posted, a number of pages ago? You are claiming that because a -> b then b->a, which fails very basic logic. Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

You also have fallen into the same poor arguiment which is that "penalty" is a defined term within 40k. It isnt. As you would have seen, when challenged to provide a 40k specific definition for "Penalty", none could be found. Every. Single. Time. they use the term "penalty" it is *exactly* how you would use it within standard, basic British English.

So, given you cannot provide a definition, in 40k terms, (an example, if you are unclear, would be "Tank Shock", wjhcih is a 40k defined term, fully defined within the rules. "The" is NOT a 40k defined term, so any time you see it used you are required to use standard British English to parse the meaning. You can disagree with this, if you like, but you are then so far off the deep end that there can be no possible meeting of minds and no point engaging further) of the word "Penalty", you are required to fall back on standard British English meanings of the word. Somethign doesnt therefore have to be 40k-defined as a penalty for ti to be a penalty.

Not being able to shoot is, in standard British English parsing, a penalty.

Disagree with this if you like, but you are then required to find a 40k definition for "the", "and', and "a". If you do not you are conceding the point.

Please note the specific points above. If you fail to provide rules quotes for the specific assertions you are claiming, you will have conceded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets.

Yes, you have stated it. Of course, you havent actually, in any thread, provided any relevant rules that actually STATE this, you have just asserted it without any written rules.

Breaking the tenets of the forum. Again.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less.

...for the purposes of penalties. How is it so difficult for you to read, and use, the rule correctly? Its not difficult. Its not a very long rule, its written in very simple, very plain English. Stop ignoring parts of the rule because you either find it inconvenient (as it destroys the entire basis for your "argument" - in quotes as you havent actually provided any rules, just an assertion, which isnt an argument in and of itself) or you just keep missing its' presence.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: How is this confusing to you.......

It isnt. You're just not actually following the rule, which is presumably why you appear confused, and cannot provide any rules - youre not actually reading the RPJ rule in its entirety.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

THe RPJ rule lets you count as moving 1" less, changing the speed classification if necessary, for the purposes of penalties for that 1". There's your rule.

Please provide a rule, for the 90th time of asking, that allows you to ignore BONUSES from that 1". Note: You will need to actually use the RPJ rule for this, and you may struggle as it doesnt mention bonuses, but give it a go

Page and paragraph where you can ignore the BONUSES of the 1", or concede as you have failed to back up your argument as required, yet again, in the tenets of this forum.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance.

We've provided the rule. RPJ. Now actually provide a rule requiring you to only ever occupy a single speed zone, specifically stating such. NOTHING you have quoted so far actually says anything like this, you've just made a bunch of baseless, ruleless assertions over and over and over and over and over.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such,

Ah, so you're now speaking for me? Thanks for that!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

RPJ. RPJ. You see that rule that says you count as 1" less for the purposes of penalties? You may have missed it, it wasnt quoted that often in this thread. That says FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you count as moving 1" less - so FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you have moved 12", and can shoot. Now, as you ONLY have permission to count 1" less FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES and not bonuses when it comes to working out if you get a cover save, whcih is a bonus, you get a cover save

So, your "PERIOD" ignores the rules. Again. As you have consistently done all through this thread.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

What, the rule that doesnt actually say that. You know, the logical fallacy that was dealtw itht the first time it was posted, a number of pages ago? You are claiming that because a -> b then b->a, which fails very basic logic. Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

You also have fallen into the same poor arguiment which is that "penalty" is a defined term within 40k. It isnt. As you would have seen, when challenged to provide a 40k specific definition for "Penalty", none could be found. Every. Single. Time. they use the term "penalty" it is *exactly* how you would use it within standard, basic British English.

So, given you cannot provide a definition, in 40k terms, (an example, if you are unclear, would be "Tank Shock", wjhcih is a 40k defined term, fully defined within the rules. "The" is NOT a 40k defined term, so any time you see it used you are required to use standard British English to parse the meaning. You can disagree with this, if you like, but you are then so far off the deep end that there can be no possible meeting of minds and no point engaging further) of the word "Penalty", you are required to fall back on standard British English meanings of the word. Somethign doesnt therefore have to be 40k-defined as a penalty for ti to be a penalty.

Not being able to shoot is, in standard British English parsing, a penalty.

Disagree with this if you like, but you are then required to find a 40k definition for "the", "and', and "a". If you do not you are conceding the point.

Please note the specific points above. If you fail to provide rules quotes for the specific assertions you are claiming, you will have conceded.

Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down..........Anyways. If you actually read the rules I post, and will post again so there is no question as to what they say (and really you should read them)!

Page 57. Vehicles and movement third bullet point, "A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12"is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

Page 70, moving fast vehicles Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out' A fast vehiclegoing flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18".This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at crusing speedfor a vehicle that is not fast (execpt where noted). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

See what I did there? Yea thats the rules backing up what I am saying. Rules quoted, unlike your last couple of posts, oh yea a YMDC tenet you just broke........ hm how interesting. This can go back and forth all day, but I would rather stick to posting rules and discussing them.

Something else to boggle your minds Page 58 Vehicle shooting, moving and shooting vehicle weaponry. Again, third bullet point, "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."
With all this put together you can very plainly see that if you move at crusing speed for nonfast vehicles, or flat out speed for fast, you have given up the ability to shoot for movement. As has been spelled out for you a couple of times now. This structure clearly is a trade off. You get this for giving up this......

Also for you to understand what the speed zones mean I guess I will lay them out for you. Stationary, not moved or counts as not having moved(ala pivoting). .01-6"combat speed 6.01-12 cruising speed Fast vehicles 12.01 - 18" Flat Out Skimmers 12.01 - 24 Flat out. In case of the dakka jet 12.01-36" with out RPJ Flat out So there you have classifications and there you can see that if you go over the threshold for one and get into the other you no longer are in the former zone.

Since you are now speaking for me and my conceding of points................ no not really! Please give me the definitions to the following words in the 40k rulebook, just, as, it, and just for fun manner! If you cannot you must conced your point and give up. See what I did there?

All joking and flaming aside at the end of the day I have quoted rules. You have quoted a rule that in the very essence of it is vague. Thus this 13 probably soon to be more pages of discussion.

Also, I would like to point out that your bringing in the "British English meanings" last time we had a discussion that you brought that out you were actually proven wrong. If you don't remember please reference vehicles on/off the table discussion. We had so much fun back then...... Pictures, and 'IS THIS ON THE TABLE" oh makes me laugh so very much!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

Wow, I have never ever made that leap in thinking you going there shows us how far you will go to bring someone else's arguement down.... for shame! The rules say vehicles that move flat out cannot shoot because they moved flat out. You linking it to stunned vehicles is laughable....

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down..........Anyways. If you actually read the rules I post, and will post again so there is no question as to what they say (and really you should read them)!

Unlike you, nos is not throwing personal attacks at people in a perfectly rational discussion.

Page 57. Vehicles and movement third bullet point, "A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12"is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

As stated numerous times in this thread, the underlined part is not a rule, but fluff. What a rule represents has no bearing on gameplay at all.

Page 70, moving fast vehicles Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out' A fast vehiclegoing flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18".This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at crusing speedfor a vehicle that is not fast (execpt where noted). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

See above. "Represents" is not the same as "requires".

See what I did there? Yea thats the rules backing up what I am saying. Rules quoted, unlike your last couple of posts, oh yea a YMDC tenet you just broke........ hm how interesting. This can go back and forth all day, but I would rather stick to posting rules and discussing them.

I see what you did there. You are quoting irrelevant parts of WH40k IP and claim that they are hard rules.

Something else to boggle your minds Page 58 Vehicle shooting, moving and shooting vehicle weaponry. Again, third bullet point, "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."
With all this put together you can very plainly see that if you move at crusing speed for nonfast vehicles, or flat out speed for fast, you have given up the ability to shoot for movement. As has been spelled out for you a couple of times now. This structure clearly is a trade off. You get this for giving up this......

You are using different words to describe what a penalty is. Those do not change that fact that you are being penalized during your shooting phase for moving to fast during your movement phase. It's a limitation resulting from an action - you are not actively replacing your ability to shoot, like you are when you declare your unit to be running.

Also for you to understand what the speed zones mean I guess I will lay them out for you. Stationary, not moved or counts as not having moved(ala pivoting). .01-6"combat speed 6.01-12 cruising speed Fast vehicles 12.01 - 18" Flat Out Skimmers 12.01 - 24 Flat out. In case of the dakka jet 12.01-36" with out RPJ Flat out So there you have classifications and there you can see that if you go over the threshold for one and get into the other you no longer are in the former zone.

Correct. A dakka jet moving 13" is moving flat out. When a dakka jet tries to shoot, he would incur a penalty for having moved 13" instead of moving 12". So, for this purpose only, you are told to count as moving 12". Which is cruising speed.
Thus, for shooting only, you are counting as moving at cruising speed, resulting into being able to shoot all weapons.

Since you are now speaking for me and my conceding of points................ no not really! Please give me the definitions to the following words in the 40k rulebook, just, as, it, and just for fun manner! If you cannot you must conced your point and give up. See what I did there?

All joking and flaming aside at the end of the day I have quoted rules. You have quoted a rule that in the very essence of it is vague. Thus this 13 probably soon to be more pages of discussion.

You are not quoting rules, you are quoting fluff. You two "This represents..." quotes are as much rules as a quote from the ork codex stating that orks can never lose.

Also, I would like to point out that your bringing in the "British English meanings" last time we had a discussion that you brought that out you were actually proven wrong. If you don't remember please reference vehicles on/off the table discussion. We had so much fun back then...... Pictures, and 'IS THIS ON THE TABLE" oh makes me laugh so very much!

Your grand history of YMDC victories has no bearing on anything here. If you want to gloat, keep score of times you were right in your signature.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

Wow, I have never ever made that leap in thinking you going there shows us how far you will go to bring someone else's arguement down.... for shame! The rules say vehicles that move flat out cannot shoot because they moved flat out. You linking it to stunned vehicles is laughable....

You are aware of the principle of disproval by counter-example? In case you aren't, it says that if there is even a single example for which a statement is false, the entire statement is false.
You said if a vehicle shoots, it can not be moving flat out. This is arbitrary, because only says that you can not shoot if you move flat out.

The rule says A => B.
You are claiming that A <=> B, without proving B => A.

What nos did was take rule that says B => C. Without proving it he turned it into B <=> C (the same you did), and the inserted it in your wrong statement, resulting in A <=> C.
A <=> C is clearly wrong, so nos provided a counter-example here, disproving your argument.

If that's to abstract for you, replace A with "Moving flat out", B with "can not shoot" and C with "stunned".

edit - whups, forgot this was in Make Da Call. Neeeeever mind!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down

That is a lie.

A strict lie

Reported.

You're now on Ignore, for lying, yet more personal attacks, and for being unable to provide a single rules quote to back up your position. Jidmah pointed out the errors as well as I can, no need to repeat them.

Jidmah - cheers for dissecting all of KPs mistakes

Indeed.

For the record Mr. Nosferatur1001 basks securely in his singular account.

I think 13 pages is generally indicative of a stalemate, and this is is somewhat irrelevant given the forthcoming new edition.

Fret not though, I'm sure we can all argue and yell at each other over the new poorly worded rules any day soon !