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.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 5:04 PM
In which case, it is the owners fault for letting me steal their baby in the first place.

What perfect logic! Finally, a way around those pesky robbery laws.

Posted by burnthexenos on 07/06/2006 2:50 PM
Actually Ghaz, I do have proof that the intent was to have tiggy double the range.

No, you do not. All you have is your opinion that it was their intent. Once again, the one and only way you can know somebody's 'intent' is if they tell you. Did Andy Hoare tell you that was his intent? No. Therefore you do NOT know what the intent was, period.

Blue loki, it actually says this in the rulebook, page 71. "there can be no bystanders..etc etc..". Check it if you want. My space marines did not just start talking to me. And please refrain from the personal attacks and insults.

Phausi, my arguement is no more rediculous that saying that Tiggy doesn't get a 24 inch fear of the darkness. In a way though, it is their fault. If they took more care of their baby, it wouldn't have been stolen.

Ghaz, please provide some evidence to show that your viewpoint is correct. I have provided some evidence to support my arguement. As I have proved my arguement, it is now up to you to disprove it. You wont find anything in the rulebook/codexes to say that fear of the darkness isnt 24 inches, and ive found enough evidence to prove that it is.

Saying that you have proven an argument and proving an argument, are very different things.

You have decided based on nothing but opinion and non-rules sources (GW tactica article) that the area of effect of Fear is the same as the 'Range'. You have proven absolutely nothing, but that in a grey area you will kick and scream until you get the greatest advantage possible. You may have been using Sarcasm when you made the Space Marines whiner joke, but its so applicable to the way you are acting that I think it might be you who missed the point.

If 40k did not define a Range stat and instead said for instance Bolter: S4, AP5 may shoot at targets up to 24" away. Then you might have a point in saying any measure of distance can be considered to be 'range' and a 'range' doubling effect would then apply to that measurement. As it stands though, 'Range' is a crystal clear defined term that is applied to specific Weapons and Powers. If an item doubles the Range, it effects only this stat because the rule is directly referencing a proper term. Any speculation on what the effect would be on the Area of effect or the distance a power may reach to a model is just pure speculation on your part.

Again, if they wanted it to double the range of fear, they would have given fear a 'Range' (proper term) to double.

Actually mox, I could argue the area of effect of a bolter was 24 inches. As the marine has a 360 degree line of sight, he can shoot in a circle of 24 inch range, from the point he is standing. Same theory applies with Tigurius.

There, proved beyond doubt.

I have the old wording, and the librarian tactica to back me up, and you have NOTHING. Yes, hear it again...NOTHING!! Not an iota of proof has been provided by you!!

Its not a grey area, its crystal clear. Fear of the darkness is 24 inches when using Tigurius.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 12:10 PM
And please refrain from the personal attacks and insults.

Geez, talk about getting bent out of shape.
Ehrm, cough, sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.
How about we start this argument again from the top?
You should provide us with a premis conclusion format argument and we'll break it down.

I wasn't talking to you.
Don't assume everything is about you.
I was simply sending a message (again, not to you).
Oh my, how this thread has degenerated.
Toodle-oo. Were I a poet, I'd write a Haiku.

But, I'm not.
Oh, well.
Yikes, this was a pointless post!

 

Iorek, your post should be considered spam. I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

Blue Loki, it sure looked like you were talking to me..

But your obviously an idiot, who cant see that my way of playing is the only way..

BGB pg 28:
Every Weapon has a profile which consists of several elements:
Bolter - Range 24" - Strength 4 - AP5 - Rapidfire

The diagram shows that the Range stat is the Maximum range of the weapon, which it then tells us is always measured in inches.  With me still? (I don't expect you to be, too busy fussing and kicking your feet I'd wager).  At any rate, Range is defined.

Fear of the Darkness makes zip zilch zero, not one iota, mention of Range in its profile. If you are going to extend Fear of the Darkness, then you must prove that 'Every enemy unit within 12" of the Librarian' is the same thing as Range as defined in the BGB. Good luck with that.

Get your argument together in a simple format, as stated earlier and lets take a look at it.
Even a simple list of the relevant rules would be something.
This will allow everyone to take a true look at it and make sure there are no holes in it.

Lay it all out clearly with page numbers please.
And make sure that you are only using current printed materials.
In case you were not aware, old codexes and rulebooks which have been overwritten have no weight in this arena.
Don't bother to bring them up, they will immediately be dissmissed.

Consider your reference to the old SM codex.
Old printings, like that one, have absolutely no bearing on the current rules.
Clean your bookshelf off and put them in storage.
Keep them for nostalgia if you want, but know that they have no bearing on the current game.

Posted" by="" burnthexenos="" on="" 07/07/2006="" 1:48="" pm="">
Iorek, your post should be considered spam. I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

Yeah, but it felt good.   Usually I try to be polite to the other posters, but you're really inspiring me to be obnoxious.  I think you've even surpassed the Captain and BloodyT as far as that goes.

Obviously, the burninator cannot take a joke.
The world would be a much nicer place if more people would take themselves less seriously.

Reality is bad enough that we need not make it worse.
U know what? I too began to think of Popeye and BT, but then I realized something....
Levity does not entirely escape those guys, so you really couldn't be one of them....
Even though I originally thought that you were.
So, are you gonna post the structured argument or not?

Blue Loki, the old space marine book is useful for been able to prove an intent arguement, which Ghaz insists I do not have. AS we know, GW like copying and pasting stuff from old coodexes, so the fact that they actually changed the wording, to me, is proof of intent (and nothing more) that fear of the darkness is meant to be 24 inches.

So, breaking down my arguement again...

The Librarian Tactica on GWs website, tells us that Tiggy can use fear of the darkness with double range. Dont start on abotu fury, as thats been FAQed by the spanish.

The old space marine boko is proof of intent, Tigurius is on page 38. Notice the wording of the hood of hellfire. Now compare it to the currect wording (new space marine book, page 49). Notice the difference? This is surely proof of INTENT.

The range of a boltgun is 24 inches. It can also be argued that the area of effect of a boltgun is 24 inches, from all around where the model stands. Same effect with tiggy. If he truely had range "0", the power would never actually be able to affect anything at all.

If you refuse to awknowledge that fears range is doubled, you must also, for the same reasons, refuse to believe the vortex of dooms range is doubled. The wording is the same, except vortex uses a blast template. Refer back to point 2 as to why this cannot possibly be the intent.

Now, although that isnt a watertight arguement by any means, I have yet to see the ones opposing me put up any evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on me, and I have found some proof (not loads, but some). Now, as I have proved my case, its time for you to prove that yours has merit. Where does it say that "range" is ONLY the maximum range of say, a boltgun. Why can't it apply to psychic powers aswell? You may argue, that yes it can, pointing to smite as an example. My arguement for this is that, as smite clearly does require line of sight, a suitable range was put in to indicate this. This is not mentioned in fear of the darkness, however, this could be just due to the fact that the designers did not want it to require line of sight (however, we have no proof of that, and yes, this is very, very shaky ground).

It seems we have 4 conclusions we can possibly draw...

1) Tiggy doesn't require line of sight for fear, and neither does any other librarian, however, this can only be a maximum of 12 inches.
2) Tiggy requires line of sight for fear, however, he can double the range. A normal librarian also requires line of sight.
3) Tiggy, and all other librarians, dont require line of sight for fear, and Tiggy can double the range of fear to 24 inches.
4) Tiggy, and all other librarians, require line of sight for fear, and this can only ever be a maximum of 12 inches.

I woudl like each of you argueing with me to state which one you are arguing for, 1,2,3 or 4. Then I know exactly what viewpoint you have, and can argue against you. Most have just said that my view is wrong, while not saying which viewpoint they believe in.

Personally, I find 4 to be ludicrous, it would make the power not very good at all, and if they required line of sight, there may well be a range type characteristic. I also dont believe in 1, as ive made it clear that designers intent seems to point the other way (and we play games outside the dakka forum, so like it or not, intent plays a part). I can see an arguement for 2, as this backs up the new wording in the hood of hellfire, and also seems to back up the rulebook, which says that you require line of sight unless otherwise stated. The one I am arguing for also seems to have equal merit, both backing up the wording in the new hood of hellfire, and there is a case to be made that it is "otherwise stated", by saying that it affects every unit within 12/24 inches of the librarian.

I believe that 3 is the correct version, both in the designers intent, and supported by the rules. I believe 1 and 4 are plain cheating. I can see an arguement for 2 however, and I would be prepared to dice off for our seperate interpretations with my opponant.

Which one do you lot think?

Iorek, regarles of whether I annoy you or not, try to remain polite. This is a rules discussion, not a  place to vent your rage at other posters.

So, this from a guy who constantly calls people idiot?
Usually, one shouldn't thow stones if they live in a glass house.
Careful, people may begin to simply ignore your posts.
Keep up the good work though, at least we are entertained.

I don't think you are doing a very good job of promoting your side of the argument.
That could just be, but you are coming off as a bit inconsequential.

Hardly a lock, maybe Blue Loki told to refrain from the personal insults and remain focused on the rules.

You know what burninator. I'd let you double the range. However, since nowhere is an actual range stated, I'd say he's casting it on himself. Just like casting Veil of Time or one of the other self spells. Therefore, your doubled range is still double self. And with two heaping helpings of self you reach selfish. Which is about 1 helping short of being a troll. Which is what you seem to be doing by bringing up this stupid thread again. I suggest you go see your shrink so he can let you read more from Codex: Tubgirl. See, I think her intent was actually for you to be the catcher. If you ask nice maybe she'll even double her range for ya.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 2:51 PM
Listen here [edited],

Thank you for that. All comments are appreciated

ive yet to see any proof from your side of the arguement...

Define side?

you didn't even say which rules interpretation you support!

You're right, I didn't.

At least make an effort,

I've made an effort in trying to educate you on how to actually form an argument, but that was a while ago.
Lately it just hasn't been in me...

or people WILL begin to ignore you.

Eh... not my concern...

Oh, ive done a fine job of presenting my side.

Which is why this thread is only one page long.

You have yet to present any of yours though...maybe you dont actually have an arguement?

You are correct. I don't. Why? Because I'm not actually trying to argue either side. I've simply let you know why your argument holds little water, and that some of your ideas do not actually hold any rules weight in their current incarnation.

The only reason I posted in the first place was to let you know that intent and 'common sense' have no place in a rules argument. And then I attempted to show you why. Simple as pie.

When you failed to acknowledge that simple fact, the discussion degenerated.

I invited you to put forth a properly structured argument, and again the lines of communication broke down.

I'm bored now. I relent. Have a good evening and a happy weekend.

bye

Rhygoth, that is cheating. Sinse no where is a raneg defined, you say hes casting it on himself?? Thats liek me saying that as range aint defined, ill cast it on that bunker with the 9 imperial guard weapon teams in.

If you do what you said, you are cheating.

"Does fear of the darkness/fury of the ancients require line of sight?"

Yes. You can also use your opponents teleport homers, terminators don't wear armor, and Leman Russes can't fire over ork trukks.

See? Easy! I just cleared up about 1000+ combined pages of argument with one swift stroke. Man, what are we all going to do with our time now? Maybe it's not a good idea to answer these questions. I mean where else are we going to see gem comments like the ones on this page alone? I suppose I should insult someone or make an attempt at profanity to give this post some weight.

...Umm, let's see... Shut up...YOU. You're stupid! Shut up stupid! You...stupid...GUY!

That should do it. Well, I guess it's about time to go back to page 1 and actually read this thread. I'll meet up with you guys again on page 6 or 7 probably.

Aaaaahhh, of course! The old " if you're not doing it how I say to do it, you're a cheater argument." Gosh, it brings a tear to my eye. I don't think I've seen that one pulled out for at least the past 2 pages of threads. Thanks for the bit of nostalgia burn. I think I'll grant the next 2 seconds of wasted work on a Friday to thinking positive about ya just for that. Or not. I had to blow my nose instead.

But Rhygoth, you are a cheater! My way is the only way, and no compromise is possible.

Glaive company, this might not be an overlooked rule, like the terminators wearing termie armour. It could be the designers intent that they require line of sight...or it coudl not. Its not stupid to say they would require line of sight, but it is stupid to say that termiantors dont wear terminator armour.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/07/2006 2:35 PM
Iorek, regarles of whether I annoy you or not, try to remain polite. This is a rules discussion, not a  place to vent your rage at other posters.

Does this go well with your very next comment:
"Listen here dill weed,"?

This is what the internet is truly all about.

I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range is going to be forced to read it. This will be the final post of the printout and must be answered by you, dear Marine player using Tigerius:

Do you agree with burnthexenos?
A) YES
B) NO

Moz: "I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range..."

Ha! You admitted that's it's a range! End of thread La La La La, I can't hear you anymore, La La.

Haha so true.  Oh bother.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 07/07/2006 4:12 PM
Moz: "I'm going to print this thread in its entire glory, and any poor Marine player wanting to double Tigerius' fear range..."

Ha! You admitted that's it's a range! End of thread La La La La, I can't hear you anymore, La La.

Don't forget that capitilization matters in the rules, Moz was talking about the "range" not the "Range".......

Oh wait, now I forget if Tiggy doubles the range or the Range.

*Waves hand* Nothing to see here.

Iorek, my rage was justified, as it was directed at a person who refused to follow the rules, and stubbornly refused to believe that any opinion other than his own was right.

Moz, you do that. Im sure most sane marine players would happily agree with me...howeevr, dont forget that, by your own logic, printed articles are not rules, so this thread has no place in a rules discussion.

Glaive company, im sure he was just doing that because its easier than typing "area of effect". But the area of effect IS the range, which is doubled when Tiggy uses it..so end result is that we get to use 24 inch fear of the darkness anyway.

Snooggums, dont be pedantic and annoying. Your thread should also be considered spam.

Wait, I thought I was being pedantic and annoying. Darn you Snoogums! You're always stealing my thunder! You're all just lucky HonkeyBro isn't here.

Weisnheimer comments aside, I think you are correct burnthexenos. I am an admitted intent player myself. I believe that the intent was that the 12" described in the power is in fact a range. By calling that a range however, we create anomalies in other rules that simply use a measurement without specifically mentioning range. Of course, by saying that it is not a range we open the door to other strange occurences too. Mauleed actually pointed this out on page 1 or 2, but I felt it was worth mentioning again.

So, where does that leave us? Well, unfortunately, intent is variable from user to user so we must try to use the RAW. Now, there are different arguments to be made there as well. We are constantly arguing over what is fluff and what is rules, or the meaning of phrases such as "within" or "main body." However, stripping away what we believe is the intent or how we think it should work is always the first step in resolution. We must start there, and then attempt to use actual quotes from the book, FAQ,s, what a hobo at the bus stop tells us, or whatever to boil it down to a substantial argument. Frankly, by the RAW it does not appear that the range of the power is doubled for no better reason than the power has no specified range. Silly? Perhaps. Will you play it that the range/area of effect is doubled in your gaming circle? Sure, and you will probably never have a problem with it.

I have two comments:

First, what I think will become my new mantra for the YMDC forums: The rules are ambiguous and contradictory. On some level you all seem to know this, and yet you are willing to spend 5 pages claiming to be reaching a concrete conclusion based on ambiguous rules. Not possible.

Second: burnthexenos, you need to understand that you're not a very bright person. I have not been participating in this thread, I have never interacted with you directly, I have no history of animosity towards you. I simply read this thread and was amazed by your general lack of intellect, your confusion as to what constitutes an actual logical argument, and your general lack of maturity and class. You're really making a fool of yourself. I know you think everyone else in the thread is to blame, but I promise, they're really, really not. I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I'm just being honest with you. You're making a fool of yourself. If that's ok with you, then by all means, go for it. But don't think for a second that you're representing yourself positively.

 I am obviously not going to give out my name or address on the internet.

 

Why not burnthexenos? It is not like someone will bother to find you bugger you and set you on fire while listening to Ray Coniff.  All you might get is a visit from the Church of Scientology and Richard Simmons.