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.

You said that you personally think it's wrong, and that others have stated the reasons for you.  Unfortunately none of those reasons stand up to any amount of scrutiny. 

So if the Tyrant Guard has similar wording, isn't it possible that you may take them as a separate choice by the RAW?

Does the interpretation of the RAW concerning a Tyrant Guard or a Command Squad give the owning player an undue advantage?

If you take two separate Tyrant Guard squads as your HQ, you have two less synapse possibilities, and two units that create no practical threat to your enemy and can be ignored, which results in wasted points.  So taking Tyrant Guard as a separate choice will definitely not give the player an advantage and most likely hinder his army as a whole.

If you take two separate Command Squads, do they represent a way to improve your ability unfairly or in a way that you otherwise wouldn't be able to achieve?  Look at the Command Squad options carefully and you will realize that they are not really unique.

Command Squad Options:

BP/CCW - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads, standard for Assault Squads.

Multi-Melta, Missile Launcher, Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Flamer - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads and Tactical Squads, where the heavy weapons cost significantly less. Even dual Plasma/Melta is possible using traits.

Frag/Krak - Can be accomplished by all other infantry units in power armor or carapace armor, and in some cases are free. 

V.Sarge - Possible for all other infantry units within the codex, and standard for Terminators.

Terminator Honors - Veteran Squads can also take T.Honors for the entire squad, and Terminators already have that bonus.

Veteran Skills - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads and Terminators, and by using traits all infantry models can gain access to a wider range of Veteran Skills that the Command Squad has access to by itself.

Transport Options:

Land Raider / LRC / Rhino / Razorback / Drop-Pod - not unique in the slightest.

Specialists:

Company Champion - Give a V.Sarge a power weapon and a combat shield.  Veteran Squads have better CC options than the Command Squad by itself.

Apothecary - Using traits you can actually have more than just two Apothecaries from your HQ.

Company Standard - This is the only option that I know of that is unique.

If you think that getting access to a Company Standard or Holy Relic without a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain provides such a benefit that the loss of a Commander providing leadership for the entire army, a Fear and Fury Librarian, or a Chaplain with Jump Pack leading an Assault Squad is more than outweighed, then you know how to use Company Standards or Holy Relics better than anyone else in the game.

By the strictest, most literal interpretation of the rules, "by the RAW", you may take a Command Squad, and apparently even Tyrant Guard, as separate choices.  Does this literal interpretation of the rules provide undue advantage to the owning player?  Most definitely not.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/26/2006 11:32 PM

2 has to CONTRADICT 1 to override it. It does not contradict it. The fact that it says "may" as opposed to C: DH's "may only" only makes it even more clear.

Ghaz, are you okay? Seriously.

You don't have to be right all the time. Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.

Again, it does contradict it by giving a specific requirement to field a Command Squad.  That specific requirement is that the Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain" exactly as the entry states.

The lack of the word 'only' does not change the basic tenet that you can only do what the rules permit.  Not in the least.  So far you've not proven that you can take a Command Squad in any other way than to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.

Posted By Tacit on 04/27/2006 10:25 AM

You said that you personally think it's wrong, and that others have stated the reasons for you.  Unfortunately none of those reasons stand up to any amount of scrutiny. 

So if the Tyrant Guard has similar wording, isn't it possible that you may take them as a separate choice by the RAW?

By the strictest, most literal interpretation of the rules, "by the RAW", you may take a Command Squad, and apparently even Tyrant Guard, as separate choices.  Does this literal interpretation of the rules provide undue advantage to the owning player?  Most definitely not.

Wether it gives an avantage or not has nothing to do with the discussion.

I personally think they cannot be fielded because both list themselves as being able to be taken with a command model (HT or IC), not either or. Saying 'I think' is different that 'They can't' because I have enough respect for fellow posters not to act like I know everything, and I leave it open to further debate. Neither says they can be fielded by themselves, nor does either one say 'You cannot' literally either, but if it did not have that specific option I would think they could be separate. I'll check the wordingon a Chimera tonight, but it lists itself as being able to be taken as a transport option, but is in a box in one of the force org chart areas, does that mean a Chimera can be taken by itself as that type of choice? I sure don't think so. I'm just posting that as a point, the Tyrant guard has the same kind of wording, yet I expect someone to pipe in with the Tyrant Guard not being able to be taken seperately, but the Marine Command Squad can. I forsee someone saying that having 'Retinue' in the name will disqualify it yet that same person doesn't allow Marine Scouts to Scout move even though that is in their name. I'm just trying to point out that other things in the game work in a similar fashion, which could be applied to this unclear situatiuon.

To keep myself out of the Mauleed fan club

Damn right. You know why? Because WhiteDragon and I didn't invite you, damnit!

Hmm... that makes the club more attractive. As Sam Clemens said, he only wanted to be part of clubs that wouldn't admit him. Is there a secret handshake? Do you get to wear fez?

Posted By rank on 04/27/2006 7:28 AM
Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.


Separate page, it has it's own title. How is this different than the marine command squads separate HQ Choice?

The tyrant guard are not a HQ choice. Nor are they under troops, elite, fast attack or heavy support. While the SM command squad is under the HQ heading, the tyrant guard is not. Notice that HQ is printed along the side of the entry for the hive tyrant, broodlord, and warriorbrood. There is no indication of what FO slot the tyrant guard would field.

Also look at the tyrant guard entry. It is lacking a brood entry. There is nothing in their rules to indicate what the squad size would be, if it was possible to field them alone. We are only given, "A Hive Tyrant without the Wings biomorph may choose to be accompanied by up to 3 Tyrant Guard at +45 points each." No where is it specified what the size of the unit would be without the hive tyrant.

Follow me here for a second. If the tyrant guard are their own separate unit, available to be taken as a HQ choice without the hive tyrant, then a hive tyrant with guard would take up two choices, correct? Unlike the SM codex, I cannot find anywhere in the nid book that states a hive tyrant and its guard take up only one slot.

[Again, it does contradict it by giving a specific requirement to field a Command Squad.  That specific requirement is that the Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain" exactly as the entry states.] - Ghaz

So it used to be:

"You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain."

No you say the entry reads:

"You take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain."

It's unfortunate that the exact wording has to be restated, but you keep cutting out words or implying words that don't exist.  This is what it actually states:

"You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain."

See how that is fundamentally different from the two previous statements? And this is "exactly as the entry states."  This includes the entire sentence, not only the part that you think supports your position.  Please stop saying "specific requirement", that clearly has not been established and is not written within the unit entry on page 29.

[The lack of the word 'only' does not change the basic tenet that you can only do what the rules permit.  Not in the least.] - Ghaz

Consider this:

1.) You may eat food.

2.) You may eat pizza.

3.) You may only eat pizza.

(1) is obviously the general rule.  (2) is more specific, but (2) does not prevent you from eating an apple.  (3) prevents you from eating an apple.  

Step by step, this will explain the difference between the  phrases 'may' and 'may only'.

(1) permits me to eat food, so I eat an apple.  So far I'm complying with the rules.

(2) permits me to eat pizza.  I eat an apple as is allowed in (1).  Again, I'm still complying with the rules.

(3) permits me only to eat pizza.  I eat an apple.  Now I am breaking the rules, and all because of that little word missing in the codex: 'only'.

[So far you've not proven that you can take a Command Squad in any other way than to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.] - Ghaz

Page 27 permits me to field entries in the army list.

Page 29 marks the Command Squad entry in the army list.

There, I just proved you can take a Command Squad separately.  If page 27 doesn't permit me to take entries in the army list, then I can't possibly field an army.  The rules are permissive, and page 27 permits me to field a Command Squad.  The onus is yours to point to the evidence that "You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain".

Look at the entries for transports.  The Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod are all entries in the army list.  Page 27 permits me to take entries in the army list.  Then on the transport page, it states that I may not take a transport listed on that page to fill a slot in the Force Organization Chart.  The page specifically restricts taking the Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod to fill FOC slots.  It even makes note that the Land Raider is a different case, which may count as a dedicated transport for the purposes of FOC slots, but it counts as a scoring vehicle during the game.  There was an entire paragraph detailing how you can only take a Rhino, Razorback, or Drop-Pod as a dedicated transport, and you are trying to pull the same meaning out of one sentence.  The paragraph made use of restrictive language, which is entirely absent in the sentence you claim contains equivalent meaning.

So here are the things that are proven:

1.) I may field entries in the army list.

2.) The Command Squad is an entry in the army list.

Can you prove that either of those statements are not true? What is the difference between those statements and these?

1.) I may field entries in the army list.

2.) The Tactical Squad is an entry in the army list.

[Wether it gives an avantage or not has nothing to do with the discussion.] - Snooggums

[When we discuss rules, it may not always be clear which argument has weight. If you have any question, or you have any doubt in a claim, there is a simple system to follow to ensure you get yourself into the least amount of trouble and make the least amount of people unhappy:

If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

So if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don?t take it. But it?s important that this is only reserved for situations where there is a legitimate grey area. Simply because some people might not see or understand an argument doesn?t make that argument false, so you must choose carefully when this applies. And remember, the onus is on the person taking the action. If you don?t stop your opponent from taking advantage of a shaky rule, or at least discuss it, then you?re just letting yourself be taken advantage of. But if he's got a good argument, be prepared to let him take the action.] - Centurian99

I think determining whether it gives an advantage is very important.  And this exact sentiment happens to be reinforced in the big stickied post titled "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate".

[I personally think they cannot be fielded because both list themselves as being able to be taken with a command model (HT or IC), not either or. Saying 'I think' is different that 'They can't' because I have enough respect for fellow posters not to act like I know everything, and I leave it open to further debate. Neither says they can be fielded by themselves, nor does either one say 'You cannot' literally either, but if it did not have that specific option I would think they could be separate. I'll check the wordingon a Chimera tonight, but it lists itself as being able to be taken as a transport option, but is in a box in one of the force org chart areas, does that mean a Chimera can be taken by itself as that type of choice? I sure don't think so. I'm just posting that as a point, the Tyrant guard has the same kind of wording, yet I expect someone to pipe in with the Tyrant Guard not being able to be taken seperately, but the Marine Command Squad can. I forsee someone saying that having 'Retinue' in the name will disqualify it yet that same person doesn't allow Marine Scouts to Scout move even though that is in their name. I'm just trying to point out that other things in the game work in a similar fashion, which could be applied to this unclear situatiuon.] - Snooggums

For a similar comparison like a Chimera, all you need to do is look in the marine codex at the transport options.  The Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod are entries in the codex.  The page where they are listed specifically restricts you from taking them as anything other than dedicated transports.  It specifically states that they cannot be used as an FOC choice.

"Neither says they can be fielded by themselves". Look at Page 27, the rules there permit you to field entries in the army list.  That is exactly where it says you can field a Command Squad.

The Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guard difference is explained best by rank.

Posted By Tacit on 04/27/2006 3:51 PM

[< Command field can says where exactly That list.  army entries there permit rules 27, the at Page themselves?. Look by fielded Neither>

I'm not sure how your post got butchered in the quote but this was all I was addressing at this time anyway.

I think determining whether it gives an advantage is very important.  And this exact sentiment happens to be reinforced in the big stickied post titled "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate".

Your fallacy is that you think it is allowed because you believe it is the lesser option. I don't think that a Command Squad is a lesser option to take that a Commander or other IC in general, and therefore not allowing them to be taken separate option. See, if you take it seperately, then field it next to the IC, you can keep the IC from getting fired at, but have him join the squad later on. You can also get an extra Terminator squad that the IC you do field does ot have to lead, and can therefore take other equipment:

You can now take your Commmander with a jet pack or hide him the whole game, and take a 4th unit of Terminators as an HQ choice. That is NOT the less effective choice.

I have to agree with Snoogums here...

Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.

I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...

"Your fallacy is that you think it is allowed because you believe it is the lesser option." - Snooggums.

Wrong. I think it is allowed because of what is stated explicitly in the rules.

"See, if you take it seperately, then field it next to the IC, you can keep the IC from getting fired at, but have him join the squad later on." - Snooggums.

You can do this with any other unit.  I could field an IC and a Veteran Squad, or a Tactical Squad, or a Scout Squad, or any other infantry squad in the entire codex and the IC will still not get shot at and still be able to join the unit when the time comes, and I don't have to waste an HQ slot to do that.  That is a function of the IC not being able to be shot at, and in this case you are burning 2 HQ slots so you can have one IC and one squad that is very similar to a Veteran Squad.

"You can also get an extra Terminator squad that the IC you do field does ot have to lead, and can therefore take other equipment" - Snooggums

Extra Terminator Squad?!? The maximum number of Terminator Squads in any vanilla list is 5.  If you take an IC with Jump Pack, you still only have 4 options left for Terminators, regardless of the current debate.  You don't gain an extra Terminator Squad.

"You can now take your Commmander with a jet pack or hide him the whole game, and take a 4th unit of Terminators as an HQ choice. That is NOT the less effective choice." - Snooggums

You can take a Commander with a Jump Pack and hide him the whole game with the current rules as well.  So whats new?  You can have 4 units of Terminators? Whoa, impressive... except for the fact that you can do that in any vanilla list, and you can throw in a Librarian with Fear and Fury as well, which is probably the most effect choice in the entire codex.

Taking a Command Squad separately burns an important HQ slot, and you aren't doing anything with that unit that you couldn't do with a 10 man Tactical Squad with a tooled up V. Sarge or traits.  In fact, the V.Sarge in the Tactical Squad can become an Apothecary and have Terminator armor if you take the right traits, and the Veteran Skills purchased with traits cost just as much as the Veteran Skills for the Command Squad.  Basically, if you take a separate Command Squad, you waste one of your two HQ choices instead of one of your six Troops.

You thought that the ability to have an IC and a separate squad was more effective, but you don't need a separate Command Squad to do that.  And if you do take that option, instead of burning one HQ for the IC and one separate squad, you burn 2 HQ's, which means less Terminators, not extra.  It also means no deep striking Fear and Fury Librarians.

 

Posted By skyth on 04/27/2006 6:25 PM

Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.

I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...

6 times, huh? Lay them out.

Never one to praise GWs rules writing but if you read the last section of the Command Squad description:
"Independent Characters in Terminator Armor may not lead or be attached to a Command Squad, they may join it during the course of play, however."
This could now be used to create a themed SPace Marine Army, by allowing a player to have an Independant Character in Terminator Armor lead the army, and say for instance because of a lack of Terminator armor in the Chapter the command squad is in power armor.

Ok, its a reach and I feel like a GW apologist, but well, it could work that way. Course that would ascribe a lot to the GW rules writers.

Not so much a rules debate issue, but going along with the "Ed doesn't admit being wrong", I distinctly remember being lambasted by you and others for thinking the Armored Company was completely pants, even with their new rules. You changed your tune later on though. Never admitted being wrong though.



On a side note, to add further fuel to the fire... I happened to be thumbing through the Dark Eldar Codex recently... and the retinue entry doesn't require an archon/dracon to lead them... according to the line of reasoning going on here.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 04/28/2006 7:34 AM
Not so much a rules debate issue, but going along with the "Ed doesn't admit being wrong", I distinctly remember being lambasted by you and others for thinking the Armored Company was completely pants, even with their new rules. You changed your tune later on though. Never admitted being wrong though.



On a side note, to add further fuel to the fire... I happened to be thumbing through the Dark Eldar Codex recently... and the retinue entry doesn't require an archon/dracon to lead them... according to the line of reasoning going on here.

I was wrong, Armored company are very average now. (and I have been very open that I was wrong on that point. You just want to hear me say you were right. So here you go: you were right)

But to be specific, you also said even in V3 they weren't that good, which was ridiculous.

Posted By mauleed on 04/27/2006 10:16 PM

Posted By skyth on 04/27/2006 6:25 PM

Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.

I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...

6 times, huh? Lay them out.

As you wish-

1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later.

2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards

3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that

4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that.

5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong.

6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.

Posted By mauleed on 04/28/2006 9:43 AM

I was wrong, Armored company are very average now. (and I have been very open that I was wrong on that point. You just want to hear me say you were right. So here you go: you were right)

But to be specific, you also said even in V3 they weren't that good, which was ridiculous.

Oh, I didn't need to hear you say that, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not savoring it. 

 

And I still stand by them being bad in V3.  I think they're far better in V4, actually... but still suck.

     To get this straight, my friends had a similiar arguement where he wanted to have a IC commander lead a command squad with a Librarian and a Chaplain attached count as one HQ slot. Scary H-t-H, shudder.   Is this correct?
     Here's my 2 cents. It sounds like you could just run the Command Squad by itself and have it be led by the Sarge, it would cost you one HQ slot.  Why can't the Sarge just lead the Command Squad, or upgrade him to a Apoth.?  I guess you could have 2 HQ Termie squads just to have more Termies but is that an unstoppable uber army (eh, doubtful).  I don't see a huge advantage, it'll all come out in the points.

To get this straight, my friends had a similiar arguement where he wanted to have a IC commander lead a command squad with a Librarian and a Chaplain attached count as one HQ slot. Scary H-t-H, shudder. Is this correct?

Yes. Check page 21 of the Codex.

6 times, huh? Lay them out.

As you wish-

1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later.

2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards

3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that

4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that.

5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong.

6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.

You just making them up as you go?

1. is definitely correct. I did think it granted a cover save, and did admit my mistake.

2. is from V3, where I was correct.

3. You've just made this one up.

4. Again, you're wrong. I said that to get a second attack, you need two weapons. It was in relation to the kroot rifle goof up in the new Tau book.

Obviously if you can't get your facts straight you're going to make some silly assumptions like this. So how about less complaining and a little more focus on accuracy in what you intend to complain about.

I'm sure I've been wrong more than 6 times, but you certainly don't get a pass to say I don't admit them when they happen.

Thx, Insaniak.  2 command squads with a commander, chaplain, and librarian each are downright scary if they got into H-t-H  (shudder...).  Well, I take back my hunch earlier about the Command being taken byitself.  The hangup is GW left the door of vagueness slightly open , when they have the separate entry for the command squad.  I don't have direct access to all the codices to research their command squad choices.  I do have the DH and WH codices and in both of them there is no separate entry for the Command Section, they just use the regular elite entries which make no mention of a command squad.  The Inquisitor Lord for both codices must have 3-12 henchmen for the retinue.  The Inquisitor (Elite choice) can have 0-6 henchmen for the retinue, but I believe nowhere in either codex doesn't it allow the 0-6 henchmen to be taken separately.  The DH codex has more of a "must" for the Grey knight Hero if chooses a command squad that he is joined to them and that's it.  The Sisters Heroine may choose a retinue, of Celestians,  for a command squad that's chosen from the Elite section and that she is joined to that squad.  I know I shouldn't use example of precendent when trying to answer wacky GW rules, because everything is a special case, but if everyone in the 40K universe can't have a separate command squad run around by itself, then the SM probably can't pull that off.  Whew, I didn't think I would ramble on that long.

Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 7:11 AM

6 times, huh? Lay them out.

As you wish-

1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later.

2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards

3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that

4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that.

5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong.

6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.

You just making them up as you go?

1. is definitely correct. I did think it granted a cover save, and did admit my mistake.

2. is from V3, where I was correct.

3. You've just made this one up.

4. Again, you're wrong. I said that to get a second attack, you need two weapons. It was in relation to the kroot rifle goof up in the new Tau book.

Obviously if you can't get your facts straight you're going to make some silly assumptions like this. So how about less complaining and a little more focus on accuracy in what you intend to complain about.

I'm sure I've been wrong more than 6 times, but you certainly don't get a pass to say I don't admit them when they happen.

First off, you never said another word in the psycannon discussion after just stating that they grant cover saves with no supporting argument.  You never admitted to being wrong there.  Only later did you start saying that they denied cover saves.  No admissision of being wrong, simply a stealth switch in beliefs.

The ordnance discussion was about the 4th edition rules.

The terminator sergeant you definitely did say that you didn't have to buy one in a command squad. You probably meant to say something else, but that is what you said. I went to go look up the post but it was right after the changeover and the oldest posts I could find were from Febuary.

And you definitely claimed something about a pistol being required for a 2nd attack in hth. (Same time frame as the terminator sergeant issue.)

I absolutely did not make these up. I'll err on the side of the optimist saying that you just don't remember correctly rather than saying that you are lying to cover yourself.

Then you'll have no trouble linking to them, right?

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up out azzzes.

Ed, it's entirely possible that all of that happened before the last move... so the info would be lost. Not taking sides, just pointing out facts.

Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 5:16 PM

Then you'll have no trouble linking to them, right?

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up out azzzes.

If you bothered to actually READ what I wrote, then you would have noticed that two were on old dakka before the meltdown and the other two were right after the switchover, so are past recovery for me, as the boards only go back to Febuary (I looked before I posted or else I would have linked to them). I know I called you on both issues, but never got a response.

Well how convenient for you.

I call shenanigans on you my friend.

I find it interesting that people are trying to find your flaws. It probably has nothing to do with your abrasive personality, I'm sure.

Now, I personally haven't seen you admit that you are wrong. I have admitted to being wrong on more than one occasion (mostly just to end a bad thread). So people don't understand the nature of this forum and gnerally don't agreed with the nature of this forum. If there was more of a friendly atmosphere here, maybe things would change. Until then anybody acting stupid will be called on and anybody acting like an jerk will not be appriciated.

Well, you might be right.

But you can't deny that the upside of the present YMDC attitude is that we don't have to suffer as many idiots as other boards. Well we suffer them, but they usually figure out that they should quit posting and/or provide us with plenty of laughs.

HEY!!!!

EVERYBODY!!!!!

Take a second to chill. All of this Mauleed mauling  , warrented or not, has no place in YMDC. Take it outside. (And by outside I mean the DCM forums, or at least Dakka Discussions. You are no longer discussing rules.)

I said, cool it! And I mean it. \

You best listen, else I call out the brute squad...