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.

FlingitNow wrote:

It states that the quest of the Forgefather went to (then) Captain He'stan, who subsequently gave up his title, position, and even name.

But this is not what it states. It states that the quest of the Forge father is currently being performed by Captain He'stan. There is not one past tense in the sentence:

"This is a quest ha down through the Forgefathers, the greatest heroes fo the Chapter, and at the close of the 41st Millenium, it is a borden borne by Captain He'stan." Emphasis mine.

No mention of the past or the then or former Capatain. All current tense.

Yet...your argument fails. He is not a Captain, anymore than a Sergeant is a Captain.
He is Vulkan.

The rest of the writing, is nice little fluff.
You've managed to ramble on for a long time...about things that are simply not rules.

Are you done yet?

Yet...your argument fails. He is not a Captain, anymore than a Sergeant is a Captain.
He is Vulkan.

The rest of the writing, is nice little fluff.
You've managed to ramble on for a long time...about things that are simply not rules.

So why does my argument fail. What states that the rules I have quoted are not rules? What rules state that Vulkan is not a Captain as I have stated the rule saying he is one.

You say my argument fails yet I'm the only one that has actually got rules to support my argument. Not once has someone come up with a rule that has in anyway refuted any part of my argument.

If I'm so wrong why hasn't anyone done so yet?

Except you have not given any rules. As you know full well, you are just trolling to try to prove a "point" that only you believe has any merit.

In addition you have removed context. The first paragraph states it is borne by Captain He'stan. It then states he gave up his titles.

So he was Captian he'stan. He then gave up his titles.

Proven wrong, can you back away gracefully now?

Except you have not given any rules. As you know full well, you are just trolling to try to prove a "point" that only you believe has any merit.

In addition you have removed context. The first paragraph states it is borne by Captain He'stan. It then states he gave up his titles.

So he was Captian he'stan. He then gave up his titles.

Proven wrong, can you back away gracefully now?

Well I have got rules as you've yet to find anything that states what I've written is not rules. The firsst paragraph talks in current tense the 2nd paragraph talks in past tense andtlk about giving up titles and command of the 4th company. It does not state that he is no longer Captain as to do so would directly contradict the first paragraph.

The tense is correct for the paragraph. Not for the next paragraph, where it happens in the past - as he "gave up his titles" meaning he CANNOT be a Captain.

Your fluff game is tedious. Please stop. Do you truly, actyually believe they are rules, or are you attempting to make a crass point?

Edit: Anyway, done with your inane attempts at point scoring. You're wrong, you know you are wrong and you are now simply a troll.

Bye.

The tense is correct for the paragraph. Not for the next paragraph, where it happens in the past - as he "gave up his titles" meaning he CANNOT be a Captain.

That does not necessarilly follow. Could have regained the title Captain, he may not have had the title Captain at that point. It might have been the one title he did not give up. In any case the rule before states that he is currently Captain, the following rule is talking about the past so has no impact on what his status is now.

Your fluff game is tedious. Please stop. Do you truly, actyually believe they are rules, or are you attempting to make a crass point?

They are RaW that is undeniable.

You're wrong, you know you are wrong and you are now simply a troll.

I don't know I'm wrong in fact I know I'm right and I know that you know I'm right as you've made no attempt with rules to prove me wrong. You just don't want to accept I'm right because that is damaging to your definition and perception of RaW...

Incorrect

Your misunderstanding of tense is your failing. The tense is correct for the context of the paragraph. The separate paragraph, immediately after, then states that he gave up ALL his titles (so no, he could not have retained Captain) meaning that, in the more relevant paragraph he is not a Captain. it does not contradict the previous sentence, it complements and alters it.

Simple english tells you this. Your inabvilty to discern the difference isnt our issue.

In the end: fluff does not equal rules. End of any argument on that point, and end of responding to you on this "point" you are attempting, and failing, to make.. I'd put you on ignore, but your misconceptions that you are right is somehow endearing to read.

Your misunderstanding of tense is your failing. The tense is correct for the context of the paragraph. The separate paragraph, immediately after, then states that he gave up ALL his titles (so no, he could not have retained Captain) meaning that, in the more relevant paragraph he is not a Captain. it does not contradict the previous sentence, it complements and alters it.

Simple english tells you this. Your inabvilty to discern the difference isnt our issue.

Incorrect the 2nd paragraphs states in the past he gave up his titles. That does not prevent him from having titles now. It is current tense that he is called Captain He'stan and nothing in the following paragraphs states emphatically that this is not the case. It may imply it may not be the case. But that is not strong enough to override the previous rule.

In the end: fluff does not equal rules. End of any argument on that point, and end of responding to you on this "point" you are attempting, and failing, to make.. I'd put you on ignore, but your misconceptions that you are right is somehow endearing to read.

You keep claiming this but with absolutely no evidence to back you up. Why? It is because you know you are wrong?

Glad you find me endearing .

Except neither are rules, meaning it isnt a problem either way.

Except neither are rules, meaning it isnt a problem either way.

Just saying the same thing over and over without any back up or rules basis is just trolling. Accept that they are rules or post the section that defines them as not rules.

So so fluff is rule but not common reasoning relating to fluff?

Oh Vulkan your F&*&^ng S*&T at this. But despite the fact you failed you can have your captain title back. But for simplicity sake you can still be called forge-father even though we have another guy on the job.

And are you saying that what we read in the fluff paragraphs are rules as written as long as there is no contradiction in the codex?

Can we please just ignore this guy? There are two options:

1) He really thinks he is correct. If this is true, he really does seem to be beyond salvation given the arguments he's given to back up his own statements.

2) He is a troll who full well knows what he is doing and is doing this just to piss people off.

Either way, I think this guy has had his time in the spotlight. Whatcha say we just pretend he doesn't exist? Please?

So so fluff is rule but not common reasoning relating to fluff?

No common reasoning has a place in a RaW debate.

Vulkan your F&*&^ng S*&T at this. But despite the fact you failed you can have your captain title back. But for simplicity sake you can still be called forge-father even though we have another guy on the job.

?

And are you saying that what we read in the fluff paragraphs are rules as written as long as there is no contradiction in the codex?

It is RaW unless you either have a section that states it is not rules or a more specific rule that overrides it or an FAQ that overrides it. Just like any other text in the Codex.

Che-Vito wrote:
Are you done yet?

We sure are.

Worry not though as, no doubt, another thrilling exchange will be along soon enough !