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.

Gwar! wrote:"...Isn't that your whole (flawed) argument? Or are you just posting for the hell of it now? Do you not consider, even just a little bit, that not one, but at LEAST two huge threads that have utterly broken apart your flawed argument means that you are 100% wrong?.."

First, if you actually read my posts completely over at Warseer ( rather than skimmed them for bits and pieces ) you would have noticed I have no problem playing the rule either way - it all started with a Blood Angels opponent that claimed his Death Company unit did not get to make FNP rolls against a round of fire from Sustained Disintegrators - I believe the issue is worthy of a FAQ.

Second, by telling me I am 100% wrong that would mean every one of my statements is false. And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate: just a lot of Copy-N-Paste type statements and moaning about Plaguebearers. Check your statistics again, there are some that agree with me and some others that have taken the issue under consideration ( just as I have ). By telling me

Gwar! wrote:Ok toxic, seriuously now, If I had not posted just then, that would be a Quadruple post. There is a Multiquote, use it

-Reported for Multiple Posting-

Honestly I would much rather use the Multiquote feature, but for some reason it isn't recognized ( for lack of better terms ) by my computer and/or browser. So please do report me for not having a perfect system.

toxic_wisdom wrote: And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves TO ME the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate:

Edited for clarity.



The rules, and they have been quoted to you, actually do prove this.

shrug

Now apologies to Meriwether from Warseer for stealing his post, but I thought It was a nice indicator of how wrong and self contradictory Toxic_Wisdom's argument is:

Meriwether wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:
Bear in mind first the condition for denying FNP is that the wounding source allows no armour save. Now to answer your question - yes, a Plaguebearer is allowed to take an armour save against a standard close combat weapon ( the Plaguebearer just happens to not have an armour save though ).

This flies fully in the face of your interpretation of whether or not *that particular model can take the save* being relevant.

The particular model -- a plaguebearer -- cannot ever take an armor save against any close combat attack. And thus, by your interpretation, he cannot ever get FNP against one, either.

IMO this illustrates perfectly why you _are_ flat wrong, and obviously so.

Meri

Props for the Old Skool Bold and Underline tags

kirsanth wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote: And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves TO ME the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate:

Edited for clarity.



The rules, and they have been quoted to you, actually do prove this.

shrug

In all seriousness I would suggest you remove that mis-quote above. That can be grounds for a felony - and if you don't believe me I'll send you copies of a few Alt-Print Screens that includes mis-quoted material ( evidence that could cost a shop owner his place of business ).

toxic_wisdom wrote:In all seriousness I would suggest you remove that mis-quote above. That can be grounds for a felony - and if you don't believe me I'll send you copies of a few Alt-Print Screens that includes mis-quoted material ( evidence that could cost a shop owner his place of business ).

HAHA... HAHAHAHAHAAH!

Wait wait.... PFFFFFFFFFT HAHAHAHAH! Aww man, I know they say Laughter is the Best medicine, and I hope to God/Allah/The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is true because if It is I think I just Cured AIDS.

Seriously get over yourself mate. Reporting THAT one as well for thinly veiled threats.

Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

Ok, internet tough guy. There is no slander in his post. There is a quote of a statement you freely posted in a public place.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Ok, internet tough guy. There is no slander in his post. There is a quote of a statement you freely posted in a public place.

Tough guy? No... Read the "quote" again and tell me that's what I originally wrote.

Yes, it is a paraphrase of your statement. Still not slander.

It is not Slander, it is Satire. Get off your high horse. Until you show us some diplomas you are just talking gak.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

Woot... the last resort of the failed debater: make things so hopelessly off-topic that the thread must be locked, hiding your shame in the depths of the internets forever!

It would have been libel if he'd changed your quote to "I'm a poopy poop head who eats poop."

But honestly, guess what, since Dakka is not a public institution (it's owners have control over it, not the government or users) 1st amendment protections don't actually apply here.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

How? He said in his post that he edited your quote.

I guess that's the last grasp, you can't convince us that your argument is correct (cause we aren't dumb) so you resort to veiled threats and general internet tough-guyness.

This thread has clearly gone off the rails and is therefore being locked.