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.

Honestly, he can move one space down, then move once space back up and attack so it doesn't matter. What does matter is that Fitzz hasn't moved, which makes his reinforcing illegal. Reinforcing is tied to movement, as per the main rules. The only races that can reinforce while stationary and the Tyranids and Imperial Guard, but only if they're also attacking.

@Darkhound-Yes, it does matter because:

1)Then he needs to show his moves.

2)The examples need to indicate that the SM's can bounce/yo-yo in that manner

3)The examples do not match the Attack profile
a)Which is it? 1 attack or 2?
b)On one target or two?

4)The impression that I got from Manchu is that the SM's get the 2 Attacks because they are stronger on the move.

If the SM's are essentially staying in the same place then they should not get both of their attacks or should have to spread their attacks around to indicate that this was not a surgical strike,but instead that they have become embroiled in a ground war.

I move my kicked ass to the Epsilon campaign and reinforce 1

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff Orkz)10

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 6

That is an awesome suggestion, and I think it should be a part of the game, but I believe Manchu was adamante about not changing the rules mid-game.

focusedfire wrote:2)The examples need to indicate that the SM's can bounce/yo-yo in that manner

This was discussed in the original thread. It was called "strafing runs" and was endorsed by Manchu, atleast for this iteration of the game.

3)The examples do not match the Attack profile
a)Which is it? 1 attack or 2?
b)On one target or two?

This is adressed in the main rules. Space Marines have 2 Attacks, and 1 Target (the stat represented by T). They can only ever deal 2 damage to one target.

4)The impression that I got from Manchu is that the SM's get the 2 Attacks because they are stronger on the move.

Like I said, Manchu supported SM strafing runs on the last thread.

DarkHound wrote:That is an awesome suggestion, and I think it should be a part of the game, but I believe Manchu was adamante about not changing the rules mid-game.

Thank you, I occasionally have a bright idea or two.

DarkHound wrote:This was discussed in the original thread. It was called "strafing runs" and was endorsed by Manchu, atleast for this iteration of the game.

I was the one who asked about strafing. Was not clear on if the SM's could yo-yo. There is a difference in that the strafing run would imply linear movement(Strafing while moving through to a more distant theater of operations). The yo-yo attack would be better saved for a set of Tau rules.

DarkHound wrote:This is adressed in the main rules. Space Marines have 2 Attacks, and 1 Target (the stat represented by T). They can only ever deal 2 damage to one target.

I understand this, I was pointing out that the example for the SM's methods of attacks does not seem to accurately portray the 2 attacks.

Honestly, I intended everyone to be able to stay put and attack so 1hadhq's move is perfectly legal--I think this also invalidates the yo-yo question, right?. There is a lot of discomfort with the "strafing" ability of the Marines and I am open to suggestions about whether this should stay or go or how it should work otherwise. I am definitely keen on the SM only getting A2T1 after a move and being A1T1 if they stay. I'm extremely hesitant to change rules mid-game although I understand that clarifying my intentions sometimes has roughly the same impact. If you guys think that anything is severely out-of-whack here then please offer suggested "fixes" and I will post a poll to this thread so that everyone can vote. That vote will be for whether the rule gets "fixed" during this game and won't be binding on the rules discussion we'll have after this game ends.

Here is a list of "fixes" I am interested in right now:

- CSM only reinforcing on moves to attack
- Eldar having Start 5 Max 10
- SM A2T1 after a move, A1T1 without moving
- SM losing strafe (although I don't think it is particularly well suited to Tau, either)
- Making the playing field (the collection of theaters) linear rather than having movement in a ring

Additionally, FITZZ's turn was indeed illegal. Orks MUST move in order to reinforce. FITZZ's move does not count and will be treated as if it did not happen.

The game thus stands at:

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 6

@FITZZ: You may retake your turn at anytime before today's turn ends.

DarkHound wrote:Honestly, he can move one space down, then move once space back up and attack so it doesn't matter.

No, he can't.

Per the first post, SMs can:
1. Move (1) and Attack (2), or
2. Move (2) and Attack (2),

The attack in question was:
1. Attack (2) -- ILLEGAL,
2. Move (0) and Attack (2) -- ILLEGAL,
3. Move (1), Move (1), and Attack(2) -- NOT A LEGAL MOVE

Therefore, Raven Guard move is either illegal or not allowed.

If the intent was a circular "strafing run", then SM can hit one of the adjacent armies and return back. That's Move (1) adjacent, Attack (2), and Move (1) back.
____

Or, the rules can be "clarified"... However, if this is the intent, then SM "may only attack after moving" should be changed to "may not attack before moving"

Manchu wrote:Honestly, I intended everyone to be able to stay put and attack so 1hadhq's move is perfectly legal

Here is a list of "fixes" I am interested in right now:

IMO, most of this stuff belongs in the Rules thread. However, as the Referee, if you're going to make any changes to the Locations (A-E at ends vs connected), SM move, do so today, before the game gets going any further.

However, if you're changing the Eldar to Start 5, that's a pretty big change in the game, and I'd suggest that all other armies get a -5 "hit" to their starting values as well...

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Zandros (Eldar)9
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 6

Goff Orks attack Zandros Eldar.

Zandros moves to Epsilon, attacks Black Templars (6 -> 5), reinforces (9 -> 10)

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 5 ---
Zandros (Eldar) 10 <<<

@FITZZ: Did you take a turn there or just re-set? Nevermind! Thanks for re-taking your move so quickly!

@John: No changes without more discussion. If people get talkative then we can have a change, otherwise it will just have to wait. Ring movement will not change in this game. Eldar Start will not change in this game.

@all: I have updated the comprehensiveness of OP to reflect this discussion regarding SM. Game Thread OP is now more "current" than the Interest Thread. I'm sorry that the Game Thread is being cluttered with rules chat but I think that's okay for the test run at least and may be acceptable later as well, given that this game is supposed to eventually be player-modded anyway.

Thanks again for everyone helping and being patient!

Additionally: Deff Dread red Edition is taking over Biel-Tan for Morgrim, who is suffering through tech problems at the moment.

OK, thanks. We'll just play it out and see how it goes.

You guys hate me, right?

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 4
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10

Crusade!

Armageddon (alpha)
Cadians (IG) 15
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 3---
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10

Sorry Erasoketa.

Armageddon (alpha)
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Cadians (IG) 17
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
Blood Axes (Orks) 9
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 3
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10

Death to traitor Chaos scum!!!!

(I move from alpha to epsilon and reinforce by 2)

Erasoketa wrote:You guys hate me, right?

Not at all. But you're just looking awfully weak...

Right now, I'm just upset that a CSM is probably going to beat the Eldar at taking the first Imp head.

'We needs more time to build the Waaaagh... Set a course for Da Big Swirly Fing.'

Bloodaxes move to Eye of Terror and reinforce 2.


Armageddon (alpha)
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8
Blood Axes (Orks) 11

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Cadians (IG) 17
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 3
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10

Love the ork commentary. Both night watch and albatross.

Sorry for the delay, but my presence was needed somewhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to answer the confusion:

focusedfire wrote:@1hadhq-Your vote is not legal in that you did not move.

focusedfire wrote:@Darkhound-Yes, it does matter because:

1)Then he needs to show his moves.

2)The examples need to indicate that the SM's can bounce/yo-yo in that manner

3)The examples do not match the Attack profile
a)Which is it? 1 attack or 2?
b)On one target or two?

4)The impression that I got from Manchu is that the SM's get the 2 Attacks because they are stronger on the move.

If the SM's are essentially staying in the same place then they should not get both of their attacks or should have to spread their attacks around to indicate that this was not a surgical strike,but instead that they have become embroiled in a ground war.

I think the OP handled your questions.
BTW, the outcome wasn't unexpected.

Manchu wrote:Honestly, I intended everyone to be able to stay put and attack so 1hadhq's move is perfectly legal--I think this also invalidates the yo-yo question, right?. There is a lot of discomfort with the "strafing" ability of the Marines and I am open to suggestions about whether this should stay or go or how it should work otherwise. I am definitely keen on the SM only getting A2T1 after a move and being A1T1 if they stay. I'm extremely hesitant to change rules mid-game although I understand that clarifying my intentions sometimes has roughly the same impact. If you guys think that anything is severely out-of-whack here then please offer suggested "fixes" and I will post a poll to this thread so that everyone can vote. That vote will be for whether the rule gets "fixed" during this game and won't be binding on the rules discussion we'll have after this game ends.

Here is a list of "fixes" I am interested in right now:

- CSM only reinforcing on moves to attack
- Eldar having Start 5 Max 10
- SM A2T1 after a move, A1T1 without moving
- SM losing strafe (although I don't think it is particularly well suited to Tau, either)
- Making the playing field (the collection of theaters) linear rather than having movement in a ring

@ Manchu: Well put and I am happy you cleared this mess.

The answer to SM depends on the intent.
If you want to make them a pointless choice, then yes cut their movement and attacks.
They have actually 0 resilence to focused attacks as the BT could be an example of.

Question should be:
- is moving mandatory?
- is attacking mandatory?
- is reinforcing mandatory?
- is a move possible from a to b and back to a? Or just a to b to c?
- is it possible to move 1 instead of 2?
- do you move in a linear setup from a to x without changing the direction before hitting x ?
- do we need more theatres to get some empty spaces and safe harbors ( maybe not that safe...)?

I think the SM get 2 attacks but cannot reinforce in the same turn. So lack of reinforcement is a trade off of the 2 attacks.
- how do you compensate a M = 0 / A = 1 ?

Strafing runs could be A = 1. But to stay and to fight should not lead to A -1, as making a stand is supported in the background.
Remember they already forfeit to reinforce in doing so.


The linear setup has some big disadvantages for the M1 factions.
How should they catch a unbound faction like eldar? Slowly follow them?

I'd rather have a bigger playground, leaving places unihabitated, but still a ring as its pretty much impossible for M1 factions to get
across dozens of theathres in a acceptable time.

Maybe to move, attack and reinforce is the issue, and everyone except nids should have to choose between attack and reinforce.
As the ability to do all 3 in any favored order plus unrestricted movement seem to be the real problem here.

Example:

2 players can A 1 R 1 each turn. both will hit each other in a endless stalemate as both will regenerate any wounds.

If they can't attack and Recover, their wounds will go down so the game ends.
If they can regain any lost wound, they will run in circles until one player gets bored and concedes.
Without an advantage in wounds at the beginning, its unlikely to win this scenario.

I still believe this is some sort of test run and therefore imperfect.
But I also agree with the referee that we don't need rules-changes mid-game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

DarkHound wrote:Honestly, he can move one space down, then move once space back up and attack so it doesn't matter.

No, he can't.

Per the first post, SMs can:
1. Move (1) and Attack (2), or
2. Move (2) and Attack (2),

The attack in question was:
1. Attack (2) -- ILLEGAL,
2. Move (0) and Attack (2) -- ILLEGAL,
3. Move (1), Move (1), and Attack(2) -- NOT A LEGAL MOVE

Therefore, Raven Guard move is either illegal or not allowed.

If the intent was a circular "strafing run", then SM can hit one of the adjacent armies and return back. That's Move (1) adjacent, Attack (2), and Move (1) back.

Manchu wrote:Honestly, I intended everyone to be able to stay put and attack so 1hadhq's move is perfectly legal

Answered from the OP.

Why do you insist on illegal if it is me, John?
If there is an issue take it to PM.
Thought I was clear, when I offered to fill ANY position/faction in this thread.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

However, if you're changing the Eldar to Start 5, that's a pretty big change in the game, and I'd suggest that all other armies get a -5 "hit" to their starting values as well...

Didn't Manchu say NO mid-game changes?
So why should everyone beeen hit, again?

Manchu wrote:
@all: I have updated the comprehensiveness of OP to reflect this discussion regarding SM. Game Thread OP is now more "current" than the Interest Thread. I'm sorry that the Game Thread is being cluttered with rules chat but I think that's okay for the test run at least and may be acceptable later as well, given that this game is supposed to eventually be player-modded anyway.

Thanks again for everyone helping and being patient!

Additionally: Deff Dread red Edition is taking over Biel-Tan for Morgrim, who is suffering through tech problems at the moment.

Welcome Deff dread, and welcome Admiral Bell

In between raids on the planets of the Ultramar Sector the Night Lords realize their prey and allies have left them alone. The Captain decides to make haste to Eye of Terror to assist their Ork allies in preparation for the Waagh!. While in the Great Eye, the Captain dispatches his Executive Officer to recruit new warriors.

Night Lords move from Ultramar to the Eye of Terror and Reinforce.


Armageddon (alpha)
Raven Guard (SM) 10
Saim Hann (Eldar)8

Craftworld Iyanden (beta)
Biel-Tan (Eldar) 10
Kraken (Nids) 16

Ultramar (gamma)
Night Lords (CSM) 11

Eye of Terror (delta)
Freebooterz (Orks) 11
Goff (Orks) 8
Blood Axes (Orks) 11
Night Lords (CSM) 12

Alveus Alpha Alpha Sextus (epsilon)
Cadians (IG) 17
Red Corsairs (CSM) 11
World Eaters (CSM) 12
Vostroyans (IG) 18
Black Templars (SM) 3
Zandros (Eldar) 10
Ulthwe (Eldar) 10

1. To be very clear, the OP *changed* the rules to allow SM to attack without moving. While that may have been the intent, it was NOT allowed by the rules as he originally stated ("Space Marine factions may attack on the same turn as they move, but may only attack after moving"). At the time of your move, it was an illegal move not allowed by the rules in effect at that time. Since then, the SM gained the ability to attack in place.

2. Linear setup simply means that M1 armies are reactive. M*/A Eldar vs M1 Guard works like this:
- Eldar move to Guard & attack; Guard counter-attack
- Guard attack; Eldar counter-attack & move away.
Either way, M1 armies trade hits with faster armies, just that they never have the initiative. M1 armies simply Reinforce until an attacker appears, then Attack.

For a M1 army, it makes no difference whether the game is on a ring or a line, as they're slow. For a M2 army, 5 locations on a ring is ideal because they get unlimited movement for free.

1hadhq wrote:*A bunch childish, instigative, self-important and unnecessary redundant answers to a topic that had already been handled.

At the time of your attack as per the rules at that time, your move was illegal. I simply pointed this out.

When questioned by Darkhound, I pointed out the problems with how the rules were written and how the example did not fit the RAW and needed amending to allow for such attacks. Manchu must have felt that I had a point because the rules were ammended.

I have not made a big stink over this, I have not asked for an adjustment to my points over something that has become the first in-game rules change, so I would appreciate it if you stoppoed acting as if this was personal.


@ Manchu- 1hadhq did make a valid point somewhere in that post of his. It has to do with the ability of some to do all three actions in their turn. A game that came down to two of the same faction in this case would be a draw. I feel that standing still or moving to an empty theater of battle could help fix this.

I disagree with 1hadhq on the proposed changes to the SM. IMO, I'd like ro see them get the 2 attacks on the move and the 1 attack & 1 re-inforce when remaining stationary as per my suggestion above.

Just an idea.

@ff: no, the rule "may only attack after moving" were very clear. If you don't move, you can't attack. Move is to a new location, or it'd be there'd be no point to the rule being there. As originally stated, SM *must* move in order to attack. It is a very clear precondition of movement to allow an attack.

For whatever reason, the OP changed the SM rules.

JohnHwangDD wrote:1. To be very clear, the OP *changed* the rules to allow SM to attack without moving. While that may have been the intent, it was NOT allowed by the rules as he originally stated ("Space Marine factions may attack on the same turn as they move, but may only attack after moving"). At the time of your move, it was an illegal move not allowed by the rules in effect at that time. Since then, the SM gained the ability to attack in place.

Sorry, you interpret the rues the way you want them to be read.
There is and was no mandatory move.
Attack after moving isn't different from forfeiting the move and attack.
Now If I did move away, come back and attack would that change anything? NO?


Why do I see no useful reply here but shouting at Darkhound and questionable claims of changes?
My offer to resolve this still stands.

focusedfire wrote:

1hadhq wrote:*A bunch childish, instigative, self-important and unnecessary redundant answers to a topic that had already been handled.

Cool , another impolite and unneccessary call. Can't get over yourself...

focusedfire wrote:At the time of your attack as per the rules at that time, your move was illegal. I simply pointed this out.

When questioned by Darkhound, I pointed out the problems with how the rules were written and how the example did not fit the RAW and needed amending to allow for such attacks. Manchu must have felt that I had a point because the rules were ammended.

I have not made a big stink over this, I have not asked for an adjustment to my points over something that has become the first in-game rules change, so I would appreciate it if you stopped acting as if this was personal.

A rules change?
Sadly, you can't afford to accept the decision as what it is and need to call it a rules change.
Keep on assuming this is YMDC and RAW. I heard its not.
I for one still go with a set of (alpha , beta? ) version of rules, to be tested and had fun with.


@ both: another thread to be ruined ? Really?

You guys need to chill this isn't a GW game the intent can clearly be told to us by Manchu. Looking at when he first broke down all of Chaos' options makes it pretty clear that he intended everyone be able to attack without movement. And the first page now says so. There is no issue.

Or you gonna suggest chaos was just special.

1hadhq wrote:Cool , another impolite and unneccessary call. Can't get over yourself...

No, just tired of dealing with someone who constantly comes across as a spoiled child that insists upon turning molehills into mountains.

By your own words of your first reply on this matter you acknowledged that Manchu had already dealt with the matter so your comments that amounted to an I told you so were completely false(as in you had not made a prior claim of veracity) and were clearly unnecessary.

I find it sad that you seem to prefer such behavior rather than behaving like a mature male of the species.

1hadhq wrote:

focusedfire wrote:At the time of your attack as per the rules at that time, your move was illegal. I simply pointed this out.

When questioned by Darkhound, I pointed out the problems with how the rules were written and how the example did not fit the RAW and needed amending to allow for such attacks. Manchu must have felt that I had a point because the rules were ammended.

I have not made a big stink over this, I have not asked for an adjustment to my points over something that has become the first in-game rules change, so I would appreciate it if you stopped acting as if this was personal.

A rules change?
Sadly, you can't afford to accept the decision as what it is and need to call it a rules change.
Keep on assuming this is YMDC and RAW. I heard its not.
I for one still go with a set of (alpha , beta? ) version of rules, to be tested and had fun with.

You keep assuming this is your thread and seek to impose your rather narrow or limited view of what "you think" it is and what "you think" has happened regardless of the reality of the situation.
The reality is that a rule was ammended to allow/clarify that your action was legal where as it was worded before your action was not. In this cas rule amendment = rule change.

I have never made the assumption that this was a YMDC thread. But you "ASSUMED" that I had. Please take your asumpyions elswhere. This is an alpha version of a game where its creator has asked for us to find the problems wihin both the system and the rules themselves. Are you aware of how childish you come across as when you argue about others posters points and suggestions but but can't handle it when someone disagree's with yours?

Funny, I have been having fun all along, so maybe you aren't the only one that will be enjoying themselves here. Unless, that is your goal. To prevent others from having fun. From a psycological perspective your last two lines would indicate that your end goal is to be the spoiler. Here look at your last line:

1hadhq wrote:@ both: another thread to be ruined ? Really?

It is sad that you would rather offer to ruin a thread rather than cooperate with everyone else simply because they disagree with you.

I ask that you refrain from this threat, but because I've seen this request fall on deaf ears for two other threads I hold little hope for an improvement in your behavior here.


I'll now go back to contributing to the games developement. If you want to continue with your pointless arguements then take them to someone else, maybe John. He seems to have the time to waste on you.

focusedfire wrote:If you want to continue with your pointless arguements then take them to someone else, maybe John. He seems to have the time to waste on you.

I really don't think I have ever done anything so heinous to you as to deserve 1hadhqing, but if I did, I apologize.

focusedfire wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Cool , another impolite and unneccessary call. Can't get over yourself...

No, just tired of dealing with someone who constantly comes across as a spoiled child that insists upon turning molehills into mountains.

I find it sad that you seem to prefer such behavior rather than behaving like a mature male of the species.


You keep assuming this is your thread and seek to impose your rather narrow or limited view of what "you think" it is and what "you think" has happened regardless of the reality of the situation.
The reality is that a rule was ammended to allow/clarify that your action was legal where as it was worded before your action was not. In this cas rule amendment = rule change.

Are you aware of how childish you come across as when you argue about others posters points and suggestions but but can't handle it when someone disagree's with yours?

Funny, I have been having fun all along, so maybe you aren't the only one that will be enjoying themselves here. Unless, that is your goal. To prevent others from having fun. From a psycological perspective your last two lines would indicate that your end goal is to be the spoiler. Here look at your last line:

1hadhq wrote:@ both: another thread to be ruined ? Really?

It is sad that you would rather offer to ruin a thread rather than cooperate with everyone else simply because they disagree with you.

I ask that you refrain from this threat, but because I've seen this request fall on deaf ears for two other threads I hold little hope for an improvement in your behavior here.


If you want to continue with your pointless arguements then take them to someone else, maybe John. He seems to have the time to waste on you.

So you admit you have nothing to say except calling me names?
Maybe you should start growing up, as its tiresome to read your impolite and ignorant rants about me.

I did offer to resolve issues.
Wasn't acceptable, it seems as you feel the need to run this thread against a wall just to be right.
Nice. Maybe think about your own actions before calling others out.

@John- I apologize for the hadqing and accept my time in the penalty box.

It was not my intent to throw you under the bus/to the bear. I based the statement off of the constant handle it in PM's references you two make. I was under the impression that the two of you were just argumentative friends that thrive upon challenging one another. I, again apologie for my error.