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.

Spetulhu wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I guess where the big hangup came along is where the Tau codex says that Pathfinders must select a transport, where as the WH codex says that the Dominion squad -must- be mounted....

Exactly. In this particular 3rd edition way of saying it "mounted" means those units can buy a dedicated transport. Dominions "must be mounted" so it's mandatory to buy a transport for them.

Back when I started in 3rd, "mounted" was the term for "embarked", as there was no ability to deploy outside of a dedicated transport..... I may have to pour through the codexs I have to see if there is any other examples of a "forced embarked deployment", it seems somethings that were a given when the codex was written, have now got to be explained in better detail as there is more options now that circumvent the old wording un-intentionaly.....

hhhmmm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iorek wrote:DJ Illuminati, you have been confrontational and argumentative in this thread. You have antagonized other posters who had no other crime than disagreeing with you, and seem to be dragging a personal grudge with other posters into this.

Gwar is not using multiple accounts to attack you; these are all seperate posters who have independently come to the same conclusion. This in itself should be a clue that you should re-examine your position instead of lashing out.

Also, please click on Rule #1 in my signature to re-examine the Dakka Rules. You have been rude and inconsiderate in this topic. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Thank you.

I will agree that I have been confrontational, and as such I have already pm'ed the OP with an apology for the way his thread went. However I feel certain points should be brought up.

1. Am I allowed to defend my view point if all other viewpoint opposing mine have failed to present any real evidence other than personal interpretation?

2. Just because 2 people post in opposition to my post doesn't mean there isn't a form of comradery ( personal friends, mob mentality, multiple accounts). Many people said the Earth was flat, just because the majority belived it didnt mean it was right.

3. Am I allowed to defend my view by using the tactics and tools that my opponent uses? Asking for a specific exact wording of a rule and quoteing dictionaries have both been used in many other threads against me by Gwar, so has taking extreme literal uses of said "words and rules"

4. Is not demanding that a person agree with you or he is a cheater/TFG/or 100% wrong, just another form of attack? In-fact he has made a few such comments and even a subtle "burn your house down" threat in this very thread. How does one defend themself from this sort of attack without pointing out how childish the other person is being?

I agree that the debate could have gone better, but please do not presume the blame is 100% my fault, it takes two to tango..............only this time I decided to dance instead of ignore Gwar.