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.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
And I really thought we were going to stick to the topic from now on. I addressed your initial post as I didn't think you were interpreting things correctly, and wanted to try and discuss the reasons why. Isn't that the whole point of a debate?

If you didn't want anyone to discuss your views, or if you don't care what anyone else thinks, is there even any point in entering a rules debate?

That's a valid question.

I don't have a lot of posts, but I see that you don't either. In my relatively short time visiting YMDC, I've learned that many people do indeed want to engage in a discussion and actively pick apart ideas in the hopes of reaching a solid, logical, concrete conclusion. Others want to simply put in their 2 cents and treat it more like a poll or a vote. Often—especially if it deals with a particularly nebulous piece of GW's writing—there is no 'correct' answer and the thread circles the drain, the same points being brought up in slightly different ways, until it's locked by a Mod.

Occasionally these two types of people misunderstand each other and one will make the mistake of being drawn into an argument for which they really don't have a vested interest. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, but it's probably something to consider for next time. Sometimes it's literally just about sharing opinions and viewpoints, rather than delving into a logical parsing of sentence structure with a middle-finger shaped 'QED' at the end.

Both are fine, depending on the situation, but it's probably good to remember that not everyone wants to have a fight about it. In this case, it was certainly my fault for actively responding to you (and probably confusing you to boot), so you have my apologies there.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
And I really thought we were going to stick to the topic from now on. I addressed your initial post as I didn't think you were interpreting things correctly, and wanted to try and discuss the reasons why. Isn't that the whole point of a debate?

If you didn't want anyone to discuss your views, or if you don't care what anyone else thinks, is there even any point in entering a rules debate?

That's a valid question.

I don't have a lot of posts, but I see that you don't either. In my relatively short time visiting YMDC, I've learned that many people do indeed want to engage in a discussion and actively pick apart ideas in the hopes of reaching a solid, logical, concrete conclusion. Others want to simply put in their 2 cents and treat it more like a poll or a vote. Often—especially if it deals with a particularly nebulous piece of GW's writing—there is no 'correct' answer and the thread circles the drain, the same points being brought up in slightly different ways, until it's locked by a Mod.

Occasionally these two types of people misunderstand each other and one will make the mistake of being drawn into an argument for which they really don't have a vested interest. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, but it's probably something to consider for next time. Sometimes it's literally just about sharing opinions and viewpoints, rather than delving into a logical parsing of sentence structure with a middle-finger shaped 'QED' at the end.

Both are fine, depending on the situation, but it's probably good to remember that not everyone wants to have a fight about it. In this case, it was certainly my fault for actively responding to you (and probably confusing you to boot), so you have my apologies there.

DoW

Indeed. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, even if the are wrong. They can't expect to post something on here and not elicit a response though.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Indeed. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, even if the are wrong. They can't expect to post something on here and not elicit a response though.

While you quoted me, I really don't feel you actually read it. The entire crux of my post there was to highlight the fact that sometimes there isn't a right or wrong answer. Moreover, even if there is—such as the classic "WraithKnights can't shoot because they don't have eyes" argument—it's nonsensical to follow that line of reasoning.

Don't worry, in time you'll realize that always arguing pure RAW is a rather foolish road to take. That way lies madness. Ask GWAR.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Indeed. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, even if the are wrong. They can't expect to post something on here and not elicit a response though.

While you quoted me, I really don't feel you actually read it. The entire crux of my post there was to highlight the fact that sometimes there isn't a right or wrong answer. Moreover, even if there is—such as the classic "WraithKnights can't shoot because they don't have eyes" argument—it's nonsensical to follow that line of reasoning.

Don't worry, in time you'll realize that always arguing pure RAW is a rather foolish road to take. That way lies madness. Ask GWAR.

DoW

I certainly accept that there are cases where the rules just aren't clear enough, and as such there isn't really a right or wrong answer. In these instances I'm perfectly happy to concede that this is the case (even though I might have an opinion on the matter), and that an FAQ could be of benefit to all concerned.

It's also true however that in a lot of cases there actually is a correct way to play it based on the RAW. Sometimes people aren't sure, or may need a little convincing, and that's where YMDC can certainly be of help. What can be counter-productive however is when someone is obviously deliberately misinterpreting or misquoting something to support their arguments.

You've kindly pointed out that I don't have many posts on this forum, perhaps, in time, when I have a few more posts under my belt, this will allow me to realise, as you suggest, that I am confused.

SO, we seem to be done here.