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.

So BCB a couple of people( including one of the guys who takes your side on almost every one of these silly arguments) have mentioned how the very next sentence proves you wrong...what is your response to that

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it was directed at BCB.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
So BCB a couple of people( including one of the guys who takes your side on almost every one of these silly arguments) have mentioned how the very next sentence proves you wrong...what is your response to that

It's not so much that the next sentence proves him wrong. The part of the statement talking about multiple models treats it differently, not saying "each" weapon fires at a different unit. The thing though is that they started by saying "similarly" when, if you actually read the rules, it's not similar. We treat the RAI for single models as the RAW for the multiple models, but the RAW for the single models is different despite them saying "similar". That doesn't prove BCB wrong, it just proves that there was a problem with the writing of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it was directed at BCB.

That's what I suspected, but given that BCB hadn't posted on that page of the thread before Nekooni's comment, it looked like a response to my comments.

Many of the anti-BCB posters in this thread seem to be overreacting... Now, I myself am not a supporter of BCB's shenanigans, and more often than not the way I play is not by the RAW, because the RAW simply doesn't work in those particular cases.

Back to the main point, you all make it sound like this is anything new. BCB does what BCB does - he find the sentences that are seemingly authored by a 1st grader who just learned about grammar. He is absolutely right in this case, because the wording & the word choices he's brought up means exactly what he says as long as you don't bring any ounce of bias or assumptions. It IS very poor writing.

Is it overarching, yes. But, is he right? Yes! (I cringe everytime I have to agree with BCB). All in all, I find many of BCB's posts quite humorous - let's just be thankful that this is an internet discussion and that we don't actually have BCB at our FLGS.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it wasn't directed at you. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Many of the anti-BCB posters in this thread seem to be overreacting... Now, I myself am not a supporter of BCB's shenanigans, and more often than not the way I play is not by the RAW, because the RAW simply doesn't work in those particular cases.

Back to the main point, you all make it sound like this is anything new. BCB does what BCB does - he find the sentences that are seemingly authored by a 1st grader who just learned about grammar. He is absolutely right in this case, because the wording & the word choices he's brought up means exactly what he says as long as you don't bring any ounce of bias or assumptions. It IS very poor writing.

Is it overarching, yes. But, is he right? Yes! (I cringe everytime I have to agree with BCB). All in all, I find many of BCB's posts quite humorous - let's just be thankful that this is an internet discussion and that we don't actually have BCB at our FLGS.

Yepp. It's not really about being wrong or right, it's mostly about attitude.