Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 00:58:56
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
DeathReaper wrote:
It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.
Citation and basis in rules needed. Treating x as y in under condition z means that for all intents and purposes under condition z, x is y.
Treat as does not = use as, that has no basis in the rules at all.
When a jetbike treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is still impassible, but jetbikes have a specific exception to move over impassible, this is in no way the same situation as a weapon having two types.
I'm not saying it's no longer a boltgun and would normally have rapidfire, I am saying that within 6" of the banner you cannot use that profile as you are told to use another one.
Impassible terrain doesn't stop being impassible terrain, it's rules don't come into effect in this situation.
You have permission to ignore the normal state of affairs and insert this new metric to deal with impassable terrain because the rules tell you to treat it this way.
In condition z (where you are a jump unit), x (impassable terrain) is treated as y (dangerous terrain).
In condition z (where you are within 6" of the banner), x (boltguns) is treated as y (salvo 2/4).
How are these statements not identical in execution? How is this different. You are asserting that they are with no backing. Show me a RAW argument please, a page number, anything because otherwise we have to rely on English and that ball falls to my side of the debate.
Fleet says that Fleet of X is treated as being the USR.
Poison weapons, treated as S1.
Psychic pilot, treated as LD 10 for certain things.
Models are all treated as having a ccw if none is listed.
Unusual force or power weapons are treated as AP3.
Vehicles treat difficult terrain as dangerous.
etc etc.
The rule book makes it clear that treat as means "is" for all intents and purposes under the context of the rule they are talking about.
In this context a bolter is salvo 2/4 within 6" of a dakka banner.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/21 01:32:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 02:38:27
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
liturgies of blood wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.
Citation and basis in rules needed. Treating x as y in under condition z means that for all intents and purposes under condition z, x is y.
Well It does not get a second profile, only Salvo 2/4.
Claiming it gets a separate profile would mean you have a Salvo 2/4 weapon with no range, Str, or AP...
Take the Enfeeble example above, enfeeble makes the unit treat all terrain as difficult.
Impassible is a type of terrain, but it still can not move through impassible terrain because treating it as difficult does not take away the fact that it is still Impassible terrain.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 03:32:24
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot
Green Bay
|
I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.
|
rigeld2 wrote: Now go ahead and take that out of context to make me look like a fool. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 04:03:44
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
nolzur wrote:I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.
Do not call liturgies of blood a troll.
Do not call anyone a troll, It is against the forum rules, and please read the forum rules.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 04:11:07
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
DeathReaper wrote: nolzur wrote:I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.
Do not call liturgies of blood a troll.
Do not call anyone a troll, It is against the forum rules, and please read the forum rules.
Considering the difference in timestamp (~an hour, plenty of time to read all the posts), I think Nolzur was calling DR a troll.
But yes, I agree with DR, name-calling is bad form.
|
LVO 2017 - Best GK Player
The Grimdark Future 8500 1500  6000 2000 5000
"[We have] an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay." 1 Peter 1.4
"With the Emperor there is no variation or shadow due to change." James 1.17
“Fear the Emperor; do not associate with those who are given to change.” Proverbs 24.21 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 09:21:19
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Liturgies - again, please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"
You have been asked to show this repeatedly, and have not done so.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 11:07:12
Subject: Re:Two DA questions
|
 |
Grey Knight Purgator firing around corners
|
So far I read that "treat as" should not equal "is".
Digressing (briefly) from the wapons:
"vehicles treat difficult terrain as dangerous"... for a vehicle, is a difficult terrain difficult?
Yes (if it weren't, you would not take the dangerous terrain test).
Now, back to 'the shooting phase':
"treat boltguns as Salvo 2/4"
If I move and fire, am I treating the weapon as a Salvo one?
If I shoot RF (1 at full, 2 at half), am I treating the weapon as a Salvo one (or, if you prefer, may a Salvo 2/4 be fired as 1/2)?
The answers to these solve the arcane.
(btw, I keep being positive that you cannot use the bolter as rapid fire, when you're treating it as a Salvo weapon)
|
2270 (1725 painted)
1978 (180 painted)
329 (280ish)
705 (0)
193 (0)
165 (0)
:assassins: 855 (540) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 11:26:07
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It can be "Is", but that does not mean "is only"
One is restrictive, the other is not.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 12:52:37
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
I have shown examples of where it treat as means "is" only. There are also many examples in the BRB of "treat as" meaning instead of. Cavalry and terrain fyi.
You need to show me an example where it means "either, or". Enfeeble is not a case of "either, or" it is a case of in addition.
Terrain in enfeble's case is a case of additionally. You can have terrain cause multiple effects I grant you but that follows a set convention within the rules. Enfeeble does not make impassable passable as there is still a general restriction there. In this case you have no general permission to use the bolter profile as it has been surplanted by a specific codex rule.
Specific > general.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/21 12:53:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 13:35:51
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Liturgies - again, please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"
That's not required actually. Asking for it is asking for us to chase a red herring.
I have absolute proof that you have permission to make a boltgun Salvo 2/4.
You must find permission to turn that into an additive state instead of an end-of state.
You method breaks Lash Whips and Whip Coils, among other things I'm sure.
My method breaks no rules.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 16:17:59
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Your method breaks Enfeeble and Impassable terrain, and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does
You have turned a statement "Treat as Salvo" into a restrictive statemetn "Treat ONLY as Salvo"
FInd proof that you are allowed to make this restriction, or else "treat as salvo" is satisfied by {treat as salvo alone, treat as salvo / rapid fire,......}
Liturgies - all you gave there was an assertion. Terrain can have multiple types AS CAN WEAPONS. Psycannon being the easy example. SO why is it additive when the EXACT SAME "treats as" language is used. To whit, provide some proof as to your arbitrary-seeming choice of replacement versus additive
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 16:45:45
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
Right back at you. You have asserted your position and not proven anything. Terrain actually can have different types in the one piece, difficult and dangerous for example. A weapon cannot be both rapidfire and assault unless you have specific permission like with a combi-melta or something ACTUALLY listed at rapidfire/assault x.
Terrain can have multiple types AS CAN WEAPONS. Psycannon being the easy example. SO why is it additive when the EXACT SAME "treats as" language is used. To whit, provide some proof as to your arbitrary-seeming choice of replacement versus additive
Psycannon 1 profile. x/y is one profile.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/21 16:51:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 16:48:58
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And Salvo2/4 / Rapid fire is only one profile as well
I note you skipped the part where you decided one time "treats as" is replacement and another that it is additive. Rules?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 17:27:39
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:And Salvo2/4 / Rapid fire is only one profile as well
I note you skipped the part where you decided one time "treats as" is replacement and another that it is additive. Rules?
Context is king and you've ignored the context. Sometimes treats as means one thing sometimes another. There are lots of examples of it in all of the codices and brb.
HOWEVER, in this case it is clearly a case of is.
Heavy vehicles are always treated as being stationary for the purpose of shooting is that a replacement or is it additive? Do you could as both moving and not for shooting?
Oh no you only go by what the rules tell you to treat it as.
Chariots' pilots are treated as being in b2b with the models in b2b with the chariot. That is a clear case of "Is".
Ruins page 98
A building on a base, the base is treated as area terrain.
Is that base area terrain? Yes
Is this in addition to the rest of the rules for a building? Yes.
Buildings page 94
A collapsed building is treated as impassable terrain.
Is the building now impassable terrain? Yes
Is it still treated as a building? No
Did the status as difficult terrain change to make it impassable? Yes.
As for enfeeble the last 2 lines of impassable terrain my be what that hinges on. That reads to me that impassable is a separate issue to difficult, dangerous and open in general.
"Note that this category is used for terrain that is actually, physically impassable. If you want terrain that is more or less lethal, look to dangerous terrain and lethal terrain, covered later.
Page 52 of the weapons section.
Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.
How are you fulfilling this clause here? There is no seperate line no creation of an additional profile. There is no replacement of the current profile with "salvo 2/4/ rapidfire" just treat as salvo 2/4. No "may shoot as salvo 2/4" instead of the normal profile. There is no optional language used, it is just a simple declarative statement. In this case treat x as y. Not x as both
Where is the permission to create the salvo 2/4 / rapidfire profile? You're jumping at shadows to create it
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:03:33
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Where is the permission to require "trreat as ONLY"?
Chariot Pilots are also NOT in base to base. If they were in Base to Base they would love the unit in close combat, and they do not do so. Oh look, they are BOTH in b2b AND not in b2b at the same time!
Context tells me to add this new profile, not to replace it. Try again
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:07:22
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
How do you love a unit in cc? Is that a different type of attack now?
A chariot rider is treated as he is b2b with the models in b2b with the chariot.... that's the rules clearly printed on page 82. I don't know what you were trying to say but a chariot rider can strike in combat.
This isn't Schroedinger's wargame. You cannot be two mutually exclusive things at one here without some very clear permission which you have yet to provide. Since you're arguing RAW, give me a page number and quote. I did that and you picked one of the many examples I gave and got it wrong.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/21 18:13:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:14:25
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
That's a lie. Nothing breaks, it just is obviously not what is intended.
and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does
So Whip Coils and Lash Whips work correctly using your interpretation? Want me to quote the post where you said they don't work?
You have turned a statement "Treat as Salvo" into a restrictive statemetn "Treat ONLY as Salvo"
No, I haven't. I have taken a statement that says a bolter is Salvo at face value. You've turned it into an additive statement with no permission to do so.
FInd proof that you are allowed to make this restriction, or else "treat as salvo" is satisfied by {treat as salvo alone, treat as salvo / rapid fire,......}
Treating a CCWless model as having 2 CCWs satisfies the rule that they're treated as having a CCW also. It has just as much basis in the rules as your assertion.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:35:40
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets
Right behind you...
|
Phew... this makes my head hurt... But I have to go with liturgies and rigeld2... Nosferatu's interpretation makes an unstated assumption whereas the other only applies the words in the codex...
The rule says to change X to Y, not X to X/Y... And trying to compare this to the Psycannon is fallacious because that is it's starting profile, not the result of a profile change. Yes, it does have a "dual-natured" profile, but that is totally different to this situation. This rule is not telling us to change the bolter into a dual-natured profile. The simplest and "common English" usage of the wording ('treat as') is to replace X with Y.
Only my $.02 though...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/21 18:47:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:36:49
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And nothing breaks about Whip Lash, so you also committed a lie. It just wasnt intended for there to be no effect if the marine player chooses so.
Breaking a rule != making a rule effectively useless. Unless you have a new definition for "breaking" than the one normally used in context with rules, i.e. directly flouting the rules statement (moving 12" in the movement phase when Infantry is what breaking would normally mean in this context)
Again: no matter what you say I have done I can say you have performed the opposite. You HAVE taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 18:55:43
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
But in the rules they are prescriptive, you are inserting "the rules don't say I cannot" into this argument. They rules say treat it as this, not you may treat it as this.
If you treat it as anything but what the rules tell you to treat it as you are not only breaking the spirit of the rules but the letter of them too.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 19:08:47
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:And nothing breaks about Whip Lash, so you also committed a lie. It just wasnt intended for there to be no effect if the marine player chooses so.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Neither - you dont have a mechanism to choose which I value you use, so you are stuck
RAW is silly sometimes.
I didn't lie. You said "you are stuck" which means it's broken. Your words, not mine. Please apologize.
Again: no matter what you say I have done I can say you have performed the opposite. You HAVE taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.
Permissive rule set, correct?
We have permission to treat the boltgun as Salvo. Correct?
You're assuming you have permission to treat the boltgun as Rapid Fire/Salvo. Correct?
Please show the rules basis for that assumption.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:04:12
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).
That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:07:44
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
DeathReaper wrote:
That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.
You have failed to show permission here. I have shown other times in the brb that argue with your view that treat as is always a case of both.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:10:34
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
liturgies of blood wrote: DeathReaper wrote: That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.
You have failed to show permission here. I have shown other times in the brb that argue with your view that treat as is always a case of both.
Then what tells us that the weapon is no longer a Rapid Fire type? Nothing says that the Rapid Fire type is lost...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/21 22:10:46
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:12:07
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
It's not lost, it's just not used.
If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:18:11
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
And what rules state this? If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.
What?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/21 22:18:18
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:21:07
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
DeathReaper wrote:
And what rules state this?
If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.
What?
He's illustrating his point (though not in the nicest way) that if you treat something as salvo (or as a child) that's what you use it as (or treat it as).
"Treat all weapons as salvo 2/4" if you use rapid fire, you are not following this
But really, this thing has gone in circles since like...the first page, so it's probably about at that quittin time
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:21:48
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
The rule that tells you to treat the bolter as salvo 2/4.
If a rule said treat all weapons as heavy 2 within 24", would you still be able to fire them and move?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 22:33:41
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
DeathReaper wrote:The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).
Please, tell me what rule basis you have for using the Rapid Fire type when the weapon is Salvo 2/4.
The weapons is not Rapid Fire /Salvo 2/4 - we know this is true because we are told the weapon is Salvo 2/4.
That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.
So..... no rules then?
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/21 23:04:40
Subject: Two DA questions
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
liturgies of blood wrote:The rule that tells you to treat the bolter as salvo 2/4. If a rule said treat all weapons as heavy 2 within 24", would you still be able to fire them and move?
If you chose not to fire them as Heavy 2 and fired them as their base type you would still be able to fire them and move (Without having to snap shot). rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).
Please, tell me what rule basis you have for using the Rapid Fire type when the weapon is Salvo 2/4. The weapons is not Rapid Fire /Salvo 2/4 - we know this is true because we are told the weapon is Salvo 2/4. That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.
So..... no rules then?
I gave you the rules. P.56 says that boltguns are rapis fire. (They mean Rapid Fire, but the BRB says rapis). What rules take Rapis Fire away from the Boltgun? (None do, you guys have agreed on that fact).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/21 23:06:11
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
|