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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You said that I said it, not a direct quote, but an attributive quote.

But it is still a type of quote.

Please stop being rude.

I believe the term that you are looking for is "PARAPHRASE".

It's a term to describe a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. Which is what I did.

You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle. That's it, that's all, it's a binary state of being, in or out. So yes, I paraphrased. Guilty!

See, I even give my answer and reasoning for making the statement.

Now, about rudeness. I don't think that I have been rude. It's not as if I made false statements and presented them as facts, or refused to answer simple questions, or taken another's words out of context, accused anyone of something that they did not do, or tell someone that they are wrong without pointing out the underlying reasoning.
Now that would constitute being rude.

Nope, I meant attributive quote.

and posting dictionary definitions is rude.

 Idolator wrote:
You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle.

No, again that is not at all what I said. I said that them being embarked broke the rules.

Specifically I said

 DeathReaper wrote:
RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.

HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nope, I meant attributive quote.

and posting dictionary definitions is rude.

 Idolator wrote:
You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle.

No, again that is not at all what I said. I said that them being embarked broke the rules.

Specifically I said

 DeathReaper wrote:
RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.

HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.

How the heck is posting a fact rude? It's the only way to determine what is being said when there is a dispute over the meaning of words! The only way. Only. It becomes especially needed when one party accuses another of "X", the meaning of "X" must be determined and stated before the accusation can be positively refuted.

Otherwise, it devolves into "yes" "no" "yes' "No" Yes" "NO" YES" "NO" YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS" "NOOOOOOOO" "MOM HE'S TOUCHING ME!!!!!!!!"

I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.

I can find no meaning to the term "attributive quote" anywhere. Please give a link or something.

 Idolator wrote:
I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.

Please do, I want to see where I said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"

I have said:

"RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it."
"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "

But never once "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"

the closest I have come to that is

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?

Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.

that is the only time I have stated something close to what you said I did, and it was in response to a hypothetical situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.

Please do, I want to see where I said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"

I have said:

"RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it."
"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "

But never once "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"

the closest I have come to that is

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?

Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.

that is the only time I have stated something close to what you said I did, and it was in response to a hypothetical situation.

It's a paraphrase dude. I already explained what paraphrase means. It's not a direct quote.

"the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"

and

"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "

All carry the same meaning. Thank you for posting those, so I didn't have to.

You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

P.S. "they can not legally be inside the transport" is not the same as "the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

 DeathReaper wrote:
You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.

Even if you had answered a simple, direct question (which I am still unsure if you can) with either a yes or no it would be conveying a message.

Person A " Can beasts in a transport remain in a transport?"
Person B "No."

Person A (to a group outside of the discussion) "Hey guys, B said that beasts can't remain in the transport."

How about answering some questions.

Here, I'll even throw you an olive branch. I know that you did not write the words "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport." when you were conveying the message that the newly changed beasts were not allowed to remain in the transport. It's the entire reason that I didn't use quotation marks. Feel better.

Now, how about some answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


P.S. "they can not legally be inside the transport" is not the same as "the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

HUH? How do they differ? That would be a great question to answer.

Here's another: Do the rules allow for a unit of beasts to remain in a transport?

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.

1 again please stop with the patronizing tone. " Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it." is clearly very rude as you do not have to explain it...

2. except you didn't say you were paraphrasing, you said that I stated "hat the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

I never stated such a thing.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


P.S. "they can not legally be inside the transport" is not the same as "the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

HUH? How do they differ? That would be a great question to answer.

Here's another: Do the rules allow for a unit of beasts to remain in a transport?

1. Being there an remaining there are two separate words. I will assume you know the difference between being embarked and staying embarked.

2. The rules do not even allow for the beasts to be embarked in the first place, so remaining there is a moot point.

You have it backwards. Permissive rules mean that actions are permitted unless otherwise prohibited. That is how the laws of the United States work.

I think is the crux of your miss understanding of the permissive rule set. You're using a different but similar language and getting confused. US law and its terminology has literally nothing to do with Warhammer 40,000. UK law and its terminology could be relevant. For instance shoukd someone make the, often made and hilariously erroneous, claim that RaW = The Rules you can point out that it is the spirit and intention of the rules (RaI) that really matters not the letter.

I just trying to help you understand the permissive rule set so that you and DeathReaper can actually discuss rules rather than what a permissive rule set is and what a quote is...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.

1 again please stop with the patronizing tone. " Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it." is clearly very rude as you do not have to explain it...

2. except you didn't say you were paraphrasing, you said that I stated "hat the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

I never stated such a thing.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


P.S. "they can not legally be inside the transport" is not the same as "the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."

HUH? How do they differ? That would be a great question to answer.

Here's another: Do the rules allow for a unit of beasts to remain in a transport?

1. Being there an remaining there are two separate words. I will assume you know the difference between being embarked and staying embarked.

2. The rules do not even allow for the beasts to be embarked in the first place, so remaining there is a moot point.

It's not a patronizing tone. You have displayed a lack of understanding. Even in this post. There are no punctuation marks to denote paraphrasing. I denoted that I was referencing you and did not attribute a quote. It's how it works. That's how you paraphrase. I disagree that an explanation was unheeded as, even now, you don't seem to grasp how paraphrasing works. It's basic English learned at an early age. It's why I asked if you learned English later in life? A question that you have yet to answer.

Huh, Those four words that you state as being two separate words seem to be four separate words (at a minimum 3 if we aren't counting repeats), but I think that I may be able to surmise your intent. They do however mean the same thing in this case because it is impossible to remain somewhere without being there conversely it is not possible to be somewhere without remaining there. SO, Yay! Next you'll be pointing out that "Cannot" and "Can't" aren't the same. This is why definitions and explanations are required to continue carrying on with you.

And for number two. A question that you have yet to answer.

I think after 10 pages we've covered everything there is to say for now.

Let's hope that the now semi mythical FAQs will answer one strange day in some strange way.