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.

Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

jbunny wrote:Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

Ah, of course. It is on Wikipedia, so it must be correct, because Wikipedia has lernings!

It is not in the OED, so it's not an English Word, despite American attempts to say otherwise.

Adamah wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Whilst I don't generally play Grammar Nazi, I do feel compelled to point out that 'irregardless' isn't a real word... it's a double negative hybrid word that would technically mean the exact opposite of how people use it.

Note the American flag on my all my posts. in America, proper grammar is whatever is in common usage. Irregardless is much more likely to be used than "without regard too" in America, and thus, the proper word. I would never dream of complaining if somebody from Germany sounded a little stilted in their post or if you used the word "colour". So please don't judge me on my American grammer, or spelling, but rather the content of my post.

(*edit* I'm not really mad lol)

I'm American too, and recognize that "irregardless" is not a word. If you ask an English teacher in America about this "common usage" theory of yours they will tell you that you are wrong.

I didn't say it was an English word... I said it was an American word... there is a difference you know. When you can point in Codex:American Constitution and Law to the place where it says "OED is the proper source for American vocabulary" I'll comply haha, but being a college level history major who writes at least 2 5-10 page papers a week... let's just say I'm very comfortable with my own vocabulary, I use irregardless regularly in my writing, and I don't think I'll be changing for Gwar! or insaniak any time soon. Call it a cultural thing. Remember, bloody, to me, is only the state in which space marines are born, and die (at the hands of my wyches) lol.

Adamah wrote:but being a college level history major who writes at least 2 5-10 page papers a week... let's just say I'm very comfortable with my own vocabulary, I use irregardless regularly in my writing, and I don't think I'll be changing for Gwar! or insaniak any time soon. Call it a cultural thing.

Fascinating, you know the correct word, but you use the incorrect one anyway. Is that a southern thing? Would using the correct vocabulary mark you as effete and therefore worthy of derision cuz you be full of all that fancy learnin' and stuff? Using irregardless in your writing makes you appear less educated.

So what happens if you pivot to the closest target in your 45deg arc and there happens to be a new target that is closer and now in your LoS?

Brother Ramses wrote:So what happens if you pivot to the closest target in your 45deg arc and there happens to be a new target that is closer and now in your LoS?

It doesn't matter, because that part of the process is already past.

1. You determine the closest visible target
2. You pivot towards it.
3. There's no going back to 1 now.

But the closest vehicle is no longer the closest vehicle in LoS.

This is why I support a 360deg pivot to determine the closest target. Otherwise you could have your models huddled behind and out of LoS of the dread knowing he will never fire frenzy on your own forces which pretty much invalidates the rule.

The only time a Dreadnaught can spin 360 degrees to face its target is in the Assault phase.

If you're spinning your Dreadnaught around 360 degrees in the shooting phase then you are treating it as a “turret” mounted weapon and that is wrong, Dreadnaught guns are “hull-mounted”. I think this is where most players inter-change “spin” and “pivot” where suddenly “pivot” means 360 degrees.

The “pivot” is simply a bonus move that allows the Dreadnaught to bring both guns to bare when only 1 gun might be in the 45 degree arc – simply, the dreadnaught can now pivot so both guns on both sides of his body can hit the same target.

Those are simple Dreadnaught rules that apply to all Dreadnaughts, not just the chaos ones.

Really, Fire Frenzy only does 2 things to the rules and they have nothing to do with the above rules:

A. Allows to shoot friendly units
B. Allows to fire twice

So for all you Dreadnaught owners who thought you can spin your Dreadnaught freely in the Shooting phase and disregard “hull-mounted” arc of fire rules you better point your Dreadnaught towards your intended target in the movement phase because once your hand comes off it – bam, 45 degrees baby!

As for the drawback?

The drawback is that 33% of the time a Chaos Dreadnaught will lose control and perhaps not do what you want it to. At the most there is a 5 point difference minimum between the space marines dreadnaught and the chaos dread (the chaos dread has to add weapons that brings the minimum cost up, the cheapest chaos dread I believe you can have puts it 5 points less than a naked SM dread).

So for getting a Dread only for 5 points cheaper I have to deal with it not acting normal 33% of the time. Any player in 40k can tell you that if one of your vehicles is suddenly not doing what you want it to for an entire turn (essentially the unit is non-functional) or is actually hurting your own units is more than a draw back for 5 stupid points! Specifically, for being “crazed” with “fire frenzy” the Dreadnaught can’t move from its location and it can’t “run” and it can't assault that turn. I’d say for 5 points that’s more than enough for a drawback.

For what some of you are saying, your description of Fire Frenzy would be waaay too punitive and conflicts with the rules way too much – I am glad Adepticon figured it out as that is how it was meant to be interpreted from the beginning, suddenly, all the rules for this “event” makes sense.

And I am not even a Dreadnaught owner unless you consider Asdrubael Vect a Dark Eldar Dreadnaught (I suppose he is and now his guns suddenly become hull mounted!!!).

Brother Ramses wrote:But the closest vehicle is no longer the closest vehicle in LoS.

It doesn't matter. You must shoot the closest vehicle AT THE TIME THE CLOSEST VEHICLE IS DETERMINED.

Once it is determined, it doesn't matter if it REMAINS the Closest vehicle, it still gets shot at.

Gwar! wrote:

jbunny wrote:Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

Ah, of course. It is on Wikipedia, so it must be correct, because Wikipedia has lernings!

It is not in the OED, so it's not an English Word, despite American attempts to say otherwise.

Is this a better source?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

Arschbombe wrote: Would using the correct vocabulary mark you as effete and therefore worthy of derision

No and I wouldn't mind being called effete anyways

Arschbombe wrote:Is that a southern thing?... cuz you be full of all that fancy learnin' and stuff?

It's funny how it's only ok and PC to make fun of somebody's grammar, speech, or culture if they are located in the south eastern United States. Since you automatically assume that I talk like that (and if I do, that it makes me any less educated than you), and that I am homophobic, simply due to the fact that I'm located in Clemson, it is YOU sir who are betraying a lack of education, experience, and cultural understanding/sensitivity.

"Irregardless" has been in usage for almost 100 years, and not only in the South Eastern United States. Get over it. I apologize for derailing the thread but I was just answering an attack OP by a moderator (and chipped in on by another).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you JBunny, that's exactly how I was using it. To add emphasis.

jbunny wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

jbunny wrote:Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

Ah, of course. It is on Wikipedia, so it must be correct, because Wikipedia has lernings!

It is not in the OED, so it's not an English Word, despite American attempts to say otherwise.

Is this a better source?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

That's an excellent source. I particularly enjoy this quote from it:

dictionary.com wrote:it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

And, to keep this on-topic, I really enjoy how you basically repeated me with all-caps Gwar!, but I'm afraid that the fellow just isn't going to understand an order-of-operations.

Adamah wrote:PC to make fun of somebody's grammar, speech, or culture if they are located in the south eastern United States.

Not true. See Jersey Shore.

"Irregardless" has been in usage for almost 100 years, and not only in the South Eastern United States. Get over it.

Would you use ain't in one of your papers?

jbunny wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

No, because, like I said, it's not in the OED, so it isn't an English word. Period.

Gwar! wrote:

jbunny wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

No, because, like I said, it's not in the OED, so it isn't an English word. Period.

What the hell do you think I am proving?

jbunny wrote:What the hell do you think I am proving?

No idea tbh. What do YOU think you are trying to prove? That the Americans don't speak English?

I am showing the irregardless is not a proper work.

But I will agree that there are slight differences between English and American words.

I am showing the irregardless is not a proper work.

But I will agree that there are slight differences between English and American words.

Such a hard discussion for me to read as a CSM player I have been playing face nearest regardless (yes, regardless, not irregardless, because irregardless ain't right that ain't is a joke... Sorry being American should not be an excuse for propagating poor speech, though I find myself guilty of slipping into bad speech patterns at times, but I would consider it slang and not "proper") of initial LOS.

If it is currently in the INAT FAQ I will now change my style of play. Basically, while playing, I am of the non-argumentative type that will adopt the worse for me approach if there is any heavily arguable rules or lack of rules, such as the Deff Rolla situation. However, once it hits GW FAQ or INAT FAQ, I play to FAQ ANother example would be PBS vs Mob Rule, I used to give Orks benefit of the doubt, and was fine with it, since INAT FAQ decided it does work against, I just adopted that rule and I just use it and point to it if a debate arises.

Ultimately, I dont care what the ruling is as long as there is a adopted ruleset to go by

Arschbombe wrote: "Irregardless" has been in usage for almost 100 years, and not only in the South Eastern United States. Get over it. I apologize for derailing the thread but I was just answering an attack OP by a moderator (and chipped in on by another).

Ok, two things:
1: It wasn't an attack. It was intended to merely point out that this word that you use a lot? I do not think it means what you think it means...

2: The word is 'regardless'

'Irregardless' is erroneously used to mean the same things as 'regardless' despite actually meaning the exact opposite... which should suggest that something odd is going on with somebody's language.



Meanwhile, the thread has been thoroughly derailed by this point, and wasn't actually going anywhere anyway... so I think it's about time to close it up.