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.

Henrythesecond wrote:


No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

The rules are very explicit, actually.

The fact that there is a different interpretation is irrelevant. The only actual proponent was proven wrong many times, and refused to believe it so.

Did you know Ancient Astronauts is a theory? Its proponents are laughed out of arguments. They aren't right simply because they believe something that everyone else disagrees with. Until GW releases something saying "Ignore every section of the fortification rules, and use a 3+ save" this will not be the case.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

I read it as "I don't like the results, so I'm going to take that as if no one knew what they were voting for. Clearly the results otherwise would have been in my favour."

And the next time I find 40 people that clearly haven't banded together just to mess with me that tell me 2+2=8, while a much smaller minority tells me they are wrong, I'm sure as hell gonna sit down and have a think.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
See WW2

BOOM! Page one reference to Hitler (or hinting to it atleast)
This thread is on a roll!

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:



No, it has nothing to do with lies or truths. That poll is HYWPI.

As for the Status Quo statement, I'm just pointing out that in any instance where 90%+ of a group of people even MIGHT be wrong(not saying they are, just maybe), it is difficult to make them consider changing their position. See WW2, or the American Civil War, or any other situation where clear violations of human rights were morally wrong, yet the status quo was strong enough to convince entire populations of the worthiness of their cause. So much so that thousands were willing to fight and die for the belief that their position was correct.

If, considering this, you don't feel that the status quo is a strong influence on majority opinion, then there is really very little for you and I to talk about. I doubt either of us would find the conversation enriching.

This is not an ethics argument. Ethicists are allowed to debate what is right and wrong because there is grey area. Their problems were not necessarily of human origin (well of course they are, but not coming from a single, human writer). Whereas the rules for 40k have an officiating body that is allowed to overrule our opinions. This is enough to say that you're making an equivocation.

Effectively you're saying

An Ethics argument has grey areas, yet status quo forces an opinion on people.
If an ethics argument has grey areas then a ruleset has grey areas.
What has grey areas can never have true, clean-cut answers.
Therefore there can be no correct answer.

Is that what you're trying to say? because, short of you simply coming close to invoking godwin's law, this is what I'm hearing.

It's the same as saying this:

A feather is light.
what is dark cannot be light
Therefore a feather cannot be dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

And the next time I find 40 people that clearly haven't banded together just to mess with me that tell me 2+2=8, while a much smaller minority tells me they are wrong, I'm sure as hell gonna sit down and have a think.

I would assert that 2+2 is in fact 7.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Henrythesecond wrote:


No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

The rules are very explicit, actually.

The fact that there is a different interpretation is irrelevant. The only actual proponent was proven wrong many times, and refused to believe it so.

Did you know Ancient Astronauts is a theory? Its proponents are laughed out of arguments. They aren't right simply because they believe something that everyone else disagrees with. Until GW releases something saying "Ignore every section of the fortification rules, and use a 3+ save" this will not be the case.

I'm not going to attempt to have an intelligent debate with you, because you turn every debate into a slanderfest full of half-truths and insults. Good day sir.

PS: And to pre-respond to any notion you might have that refusal to argue with you is concession, no, it isn't. Refusing to engage in a debate with someone who posits that the sky is purple doesn't make the sky purple.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
There is no such thing as "General vs. Specific". It's "Basic vs. Advanced", and both rules are in the advanced sections of the BRB.

It's just basic use of the language. If you have a broad statement and a second statement saying "actually, this one works differently" then the specific takes priority over the general. If I say both "I hate seafood" and "I love shrimp" it's completely unambiguous that shrimp are a special case of seafood that violates the general rule and I'd be entirely justified in calling you a moron if you started arguing that I must hate shrimp because I said I hate seafood.

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The problem with this argument (and most every argument on here) is that we are discussing the rules on a web forum with no stakes, no risks, and no reason to concede. If someone were actually playing a game and this came up, they'd have to settle it quickly or else the game would grind to a halt. Here, though, we have no reputations of sportsmanship to uphold, no reason to come to a decision, and nothing to lose. What's the worst that could happen? The thread gets locked? (Again?)
In other words, nobody is going to get anywhere with this because nobody has a reason to concede or admit fault.

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

Except that is incorrect as the rules for every fortification's cover save is less specific than the ADL terrain type.

Here is why:

A fortification, that is a wall, has a 3+ cover save.

an ADL is a barricade/defense line (Battlefield Debris) and as such follows the rules for walls which give a 4+ cover save.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not going to attempt to have an intelligent debate with you, because you turn every debate into a slanderfest full of half-truths and insults. Good day sir.

PS: And to pre-respond to any notion you might have that refusal to argue with you is concession, no, it isn't. Refusing to engage in a debate with someone who posits that the sky is purple doesn't make the sky purple.

Please, stop telling me I’m slandering and insulting you, then proceed call me unintelligent. It does not do your case any good.

Refusing to have a debate with me is not the same as ignoring points that debunk the premises of your arguments. It is one thing to have a valid argument, quite another to have a sound one. Your arguments are valid, but they pale in the face of controversy. There is evidence to the contrary that stops many of your premises from being true that you simply ignore, telling me that “You’re right and don’t want to engage in a debate.”
You are refusing to engage in argument, rather sticking to assertions without supporting your premises for them.Argument is not in the conclusion, we can agree that your arguments are valid. I simply cannot agree that they are sound, as I'm yet to see undebunkable evidence that agrees with you.

Also, the sky can be purple. This is my home (Brisbane) at sunset.

http://nickevansphoto.com/2011/nice-sunset-brisbane/

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

Except that is incorrect as the rules for every fortification's cover save is less specific than the ADL terrain type.

Here is why:

A fortification, that is a wall, has a 3+ cover save.

an ADL is a barricade/defense line (Battlefield Debris) and as such follows the rules for walls which give a 4+ cover save.

I disagree. I think an ADL is a more specific type of defense line. But we both know we're not going to change the other's opinion. I'd love for this to get FAQed. Not because I think the FAQ would support my position, but because I just like rules where there is no debate to be had at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The problem with this argument (and most every argument on here) is that we are discussing the rules on a web forum with no stakes, no risks, and no reason to concede. If someone were actually playing a game and this came up, they'd have to settle it quickly or else the game would grind to a halt. Here, though, we have no reputations of sportsmanship to uphold, no reason to come to a decision, and nothing to lose. What's the worst that could happen? The thread gets locked? (Again?)
In other words, nobody is going to get anywhere with this because nobody has a reason to concede or admit fault.

Yes, people on the internet are like that?

I'm sure that in a game situation, Betray will concede to play it 4+. As he's said, he doesn't use it. I don't know why he's so invested in this argument that continually gets debunked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I disagree. I think an ADL is a more specific type of defense line. But we both know we're not going to change the other's opinion. I'd love for this to get FAQed. Not because I think the FAQ would support my position, but because I just like rules where there is no debate to be had at all.

Now, the part in bold first, Betray:

You say this and that's fine. But it's not an argument, it's a conclusion. The evidence does not support this conclusion and the majority (thankyou to solo for providing a poll for this) do not agree with you.

The most obvious debunk is that the most specific Defense line provides a 4+ save with a 2+ save on gtg

While you may be correct that the status quo is not always correct (one would only have to look at darwinian evolution to see this), I do re-assert that in this case, you do yourself no favours by going against it.

Now, the other bit:

I respect this. If they were to FAQ it and say that it was, in fact, a 3+ I would not argue for 4+. I would continue to believe that GW makes some very silly decisions, but I accept their judgement as final.

He just wants to feel special, like he found something and corrected the world, and thus change his name to CorrectedTheWorld.

tgf wrote:
He just wants to feel special, like he found something and corrected the world, and thus change his name to CorrectedTheWorld.

That is every scientists dream.

I do believe that he genuinely believes that this is true and I can respect his solidarity, but even if he is correct in the eyes of GW, right now he has to concede to HYWPI. If you have these arguments with everyone, you only make enemies for yourself.

 Jimsolo wrote:
EDIT: This isn't intended to be a thread for a rules discussion.

Well, that went well...

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Please, stop telling me I’m slandering and insulting you

This is a simple fix. Stop posting slander and insults. Half the things you posted about the previous discussion on this were complete falsehoods. I wasn't the SOLE person arguing this issue. And it's easy to see why those who might have spoke up with their opinions would avoid doing so when they see how you and 2 others in that thread react to someone arguing a point of contention. Generally people don't want to post an opinion when they know that opinion will be met with hostility, attempted humiliation, and direct insults to their intelligence and/or character. I'm not avoiding debating with you because you have "debunked" anything. The only thing you ever did was repost a section of my original post, which created the point of contention to begin with. That post was made BECAUSE there is conflict in the rules. I knew the conflict was there when I posted it, and it is WHY I posted it. Restating my own citations isn't some otherworldly revelation that should erase all doubt.

Both you, and Grendel's primary mode of arguing was to basically say, "You're wrong, because I'm ignoring the other 4 rules citations you posted in favor of the 1 citation on page 114". And you just spammed it over and over again to bloat the thread with posts on how the position of seeing 3+ as a relevent argument was completely incorrect with no basis in the rules, which is completely not the case. To further compound the issue, you both threw around insults and condescension as if you were right by holy decree. I'm not interested in having such debates. Debates solely on the merit of an argument, sure. Debates based around how clever we can be while making veiled insinuations at each other that the other is a moron? No thanks, there are better uses of my time.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

This is a simple fix. Stop posting slander and insults. Half the things you posted about the previous discussion on this were complete falsehoods. I wasn't the SOLE person arguing this issue. And it's easy to see why those who might have spoke up with their opinions would avoid doing so when they see how you and 2 others in that thread react to someone arguing a point of contention.

IT is better to argue against a point of contention, than to simply ignore it. You had accomplished nothing by ignoring the fortification rules, as written, yet you ignored the people who were for those rules, as written?

You weren't the sole person arguing against this issue. You weren't trying to argue against the issues presented at all.

Furthermore, we refused to see the relevance in the other rules cited. The rules to argue about were found on page 114 and the rules that it directed you to. These were the most specific rules, so the most relevant.

Finally, your edit removed vital information to context. Expressly, you ignoring the fact that you've called me stupid, or implied I'm unintelligible more than three times. I would say, that I am not the one who is ignoring his misdoings.

I noticed you removed your comment refering to me as a goblin. Smooth.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Both you, and Grendel's primary mode of arguing was to basically say, "You're wrong, because I'm ignoring the other 4 rules citations you posted in favor of the 1 citation on page 114".

Now that is a straight up lie.
You complain people insult you? Pot kettle black?
I posted rules and page references, I'd appreciate the same courtesy, not these personal attacks. I enjoy rules debates, I enjoyed the last one. I don't appreciate these falsehoods against me, and would like an apology please.
Check the last thread as to what I posted, before casting stones.

On a relevant note, I think the OP got the numbers he was after. This isn't suppose to be a rules debate. Suggest the thread is closed now.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

I do believe that he genuinely believes that this is true and I can respect his solidarity, but even if he is correct in the eyes of GW, right now he has to concede to HYWPI. If you have these arguments with everyone, you only make enemies for yourself.

I have no problem with HYWPI. My original intention was only to point out that there are rules that muddy the waters, and that it is very possible that the current state of being, with regard to how the ADL is used, could be incorrect.

Also, I don't feel like all of your arguments are without merit, but I really don't want to argue with someone who posts 30 posts an hour and easily resorts to condescension and insults. It's not worth my time. No offense, I understand that many people don't think manners are important on the internet. I'm not one of those people, and I don't like how I react when I react to those people, because I get drawn in to the condescension/insult game. I'm not here to call people idiots in the most clever way possible. I'm here to help, and be helped in clarifying rules with rules citations from our source material.

So, to any I have been condescending to in this thread, I appologize. Most likely, it was a response to whatever rude or presumptuous thing was said to begin with, but that doesn't make me any more right for getting drawn into the petty bickering than those of you who would instigate such responses to begin with. I've said my peace, and will now bow out of this thread with as much grace as I can muster. If anyone is really interested in my opinion, or somehow thinks they have a rule we missed, feel free to PM me.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Also, I don't feel like all of your arguments are without merit, but I really don't want to argue with someone who posts 30 posts an hour and easily resorts to condescension and insults. It's not worth my time. No offense, I understand that many people don't think manners are important on the internet. I'm not one of those people, and I don't like how I react when I react to those people, because I get drawn in to the condescension/insult game. I'm not here to call people idiots in the most clever way possible. I'm here to help, and be helped in clarifying rules with rules citations from our source material.

So, to any I have been condescending to in this thread, I appologize. Most likely, it was a response to whatever rude or presumptuous thing was said to begin with, but that doesn't make me any more right for getting drawn into the petty bickering than those of you who would instigate such responses to begin with. I've said my peace, and will now bow out of this thread with as much grace as I can muster. If anyone is really interested in my opinion, or somehow thinks they have a rule we missed, feel free to PM me.

You are guilty of every crime against manners that I am. That is no falsehood. I just have the solidarity to leave them in place, once I've said them.

If you don't feel all my arguments are without merit, then you must attempt to debunk them. if you then refuse to debunk them, you are allowing my assertions to go uncontested. You not contesting them may not make them true, but that they go uncontested does. If I saw "You shot the sherif" and you don't try to debunk my assertion, you are leaving me to be correct. This is not the same as me being correct, but it does not help your case at all.

Reading the rest, you're probably right to do so. If I am later convinced that you are correct, then I will be sure to concede to you. Right now, I can't see it, however.

The more specific rules state it is a 4+, as was proven in the other thread.

The ruels citations posted by Betray were not valid, for reasons LONG explained in the other thread, and so are irrelevant.

"Fortification" the FOC slot and "fortification" the general description are two different things.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

You are guilty of every crime against manners that I am. That is no falsehood. I just have the solidarity to leave them in place, once I've said them.

Now you're insinuating that I edit my posts to remove snarky comments? I don't. Look back over this thread. Example below. Look, this is really tiresome. Having to respond to things like this that are simply untrue insinuations is precisely the reason I said I don't want to debate with you. It's exhausting. I own up to it when I call someone an idiot, veiled or otherwise, and I don't go back and edit my comments to remove such things. As below, the majority of my snarkiness is in response to juvenile thinking or rude statements made to begin with. I responded to your PM, outlining exactly why I don't want to continue this. Arguing about 5 things I never said because people misquote me or make connections that don't exist is not at all interesting to me, and is a complete waste of my time. Straw man arguments win. Bravo.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

easysauce wrote:
90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know we were practicing correctness by majority here. The next time I meet 30 guys who tell me 2+2=8, I'll keep that in mind.

"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."

I am not a fan of group think or majority correctness, see things like global warming/cooling, socialism/capitalism to see where group think has replaced scientific method to come to a conclusion. Yes concensus does not make correctness. However when interpruting language, ambigous langage, and rules where agreement is required a majority is correct, and if less than 10% come to an interprutation which is what your are doing, you are wrong. The very nature of interprutation is majority opinion is correct.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."

Beautifully ambiguous comment. It made me laugh. Since you haven't really posted your position in this thread as far as I recall, the comment is ambiguous enough to not be directed at any one person, but almost certainly is. Probably towards me, but I appreciate the artful delivery nonetheless, so I'll just assume you're talking about someone else.

The funniest part about this comment, is that I totally relate to the feeling put forth in it, quite often. Perhaps we're all just pigeons here, crapping on each other's boards and all acting like we've won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:
I am not a fan of group think or majority correctness, see things like global warming/cooling, socialism/capitalism to see where group think has replaced scientific method to come to a conclusion. Yes concensus does not make correctness. However when interpruting language, ambigous langage, and rules where agreement is required a majority is correct, and if less than 10% come to an interprutation which is what your are doing, you are wrong. The very nature of interprutation is majority opinion is correct.

Laws are rules. Laws and social policy are what I was referring to when I referenced WW2 and the American Civil war. The rules for our toy soldiers draw a direct parallel to such laws, albeit on a much smaller, much less important scale.

I was the second to reply actually if you want to know my views on the topic.

Aaah, not this gak again.
The "3+ arguments" were destroyed in that other thread but the guy kept ignoring them and repeated the same over and over.

It's probably going to happen here too, so I guess we'll just have to warn a moderator in advance.

Kangodo wrote:
The "3+ arguments" were destroyed in that other thread but the guy kept ignoring them and repeated the same over and over.

This is the type of useless post that created the problem in the first thread. People posting that an argument has been lost when there is clearly still contention. Me saying, I win, you lose, doesn't make it so.

But just in case the rules of normal interaction are different here, and I'm incorrect....I win, you lose.

There's only contention because people refuse to accept rules quotes.

Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit behind the ADL and elevated. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

Yes, so far as I know.