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.

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.

The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.

The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.

The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.

You are the one who needs to advance an argument here. I have posted the relevant rules. Have a conversation with the rules and resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
See above

Still didn't answer it. Quoting sections of the rulebook that don't say "All steps must be followed or the rules break and the sun goes out and we all die." isn't answering the question.

Please, answer the question.

The sun does not go out and we do not all die. You simply resort to house rule to get the game to continue.

Okay, so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Oh, and quoting the rules at me again would be pretty rude - you're an intelligent person, use your words.

The rules should be quoted whenever possible. Keep in mind that you are the one who has the burden of proof here. You need to resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

They've been quoted before, hence why I said "again".
Answer my question please. You're dodging again. I've underlined it for clarity.

You are the one who needs to advance an argument here. I have posted the relevant rules. Have a conversation with the rules and resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

Your answer is relevant to my argument. I don't ask questions for random reasons. I've spelled out how it's resolved and I understand why you disagree. For me to continue the discussion I have to understand your stance.

Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.

Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.

Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.

col_impact so if any of the 7 steps cannot be followed, for whatever reason, it requires a house rule to continue? I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth. 

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.

Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.

It has been presented. You disagreed, but will not provide anything to back up your disagreement

When questioned, in a reasonable, intelligent manner, in detail with pertinent, probing questions, you refuse to respond. When provided proof that your assertions are flawed, you narrow the scope, or change tack.

Throughout you have failed to contribute, but have distracted immensely from worthwhile debate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why do you not answer pertinent, on point questions? This isn't debate, you want a monologue.

Your constant ducking isn't suitable for these forums. Please refrain from posting if you are unwilling to interact, it's rude.

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strict RAW) to resolve.

It has been presented. You disagreed, but will not provide anything to back up your disagreement

When questioned, in a reasonable, intelligent manner, in detail with pertinent, probing questions, you refuse to respond. When provided proof that your assertions are flawed, you narrow the scope, or change tack.

Throughout you have failed to contribute, but have distracted immensely from worthwhile debate.

The thread missed the part where you provided fully delineated ways of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.

You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.

col_impact wrote:
The thread missed the part where you provided fully delineated ways of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/621079.page#7334241

Answer the question, please. Stop dodging.

 FlingitNow wrote:

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.

You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.

I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.

If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.

You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.

I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.

If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.

After 15 pages things start to blur together. Could you please quote where anyone has said strict RAW that Psychic Shriek can be resolved?

One side has said that since certain steps in the shooting attack rules cannot be resolved, to skip them, just like you would do with anything else that cannot be resolved, such as affecting vehicles with a Toughness buff/debuff provided by either Enfeeble or Iron Arm.

The other side has claimed that RAW if you do not have a profile you get 1 shot. They have also been asked to back up their claim. They ask for a "Zero shot shooting attack" (whatever that is), and when provided with a scenario where a weapon fires zero shots (yet sounds to me like a "Zero shot shooting attack") claim it is irrelevant. When asked what it is, they do not answer the questions.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You need to advance a fully delineated way of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek requires some measure of house rule (intervention from outside strictRAW) to resolve.

You need to show that Psychic Shriek per strict RAW is broken. The burden of proof is on you to provide it. Then we can have a dialogue. Alternatively, you can just admit that Psychic Shriek works RaW.

I am not the one claiming a strict RAW to resolve Psychic Shriek. My argument is that you cannot resolve Psychic Shriek per strict RAW. The burden is on those who claim to have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek to prove that they indeed have a strict RAW way of resolving Psychic Shriek.

If you do not see that your greater claim has the burden of proof, then you have a fundamental misconception about logic and about proof and about debates.

After 15 pages things start to blur together. Could you please quote where anyone has said strict RAW that Psychic Shriek can be resolved?

One side has said that since certain steps in the shooting attack rules cannot be resolved, to skip them, just like you would do with anything else that cannot be resolved, such as affecting vehicles with a Toughness buff/debuff provided by either Enfeeble or Iron Arm.

The other side has claimed that RAW if you do not have a profile you get 1 shot. They have also been asked to back up their claim. They ask for a "Zero shot shooting attack" (whatever that is), and when provided with a scenario where a weapon fires zero shots (yet sounds to me like a "Zero shot shooting attack") claim it is irrelevant. When asked what it is, they do not answer the questions.

Is everyone in agreement that Psychic Shriek cannot be resolved per strict RAW? If so that would be great to hear since that proves my argument and then we can begin with the fun stuff of debating the merits of various HYWPI approaches.

If anyone is still maintaining that Psychic Shriek can be resolved per strict RAW then it's time to stand up and be recognized and give us your full delineated argument since the burden of proof is on you.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The thread missed the part where you provided fully delineated ways of resolving Psychic Shriek per strict RAW.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/621079.page#7334241

Answer the question, please. Stop dodging.

I'll repeat my post.

This has become circular, and I think all points have been fully expressed by now.

So, locking...