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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

No...not for any kind of willful ingorance of your point...I just don't have the book in front of me.

Is ATSKNF a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

If not, you're just providing an example, not a rule, and therefore you are not answering my question.

I'd really like an answer...I've answered all of your questins (I hope)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts..

do you refuse to post quoted rules because you don't like the tenants of the forum or just out of spite ?

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts..

do you refuse to post quoted rules because you don't like the tenants of the forum or just out of spite ?

"Tenets"

The rules were posted. I won't do your work for you. "Spite"? Really? Reported for rule 1

jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

No...not for any kind of willful ingorance of your point...I just don't have the book in front of me.

The EXACT rule was posted, and referenced to being posted , just a page or so back. I'd suggest you review it

[quote
Is ATSKNF a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

Then take some time and think about the answer. Being unprepared to answer a relevant question and refusing to actually answer it isn't the right way to engage in a proper debate.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

Then stop commenting on rescued, as you clearly are incapable of assessing whether the unit was rescued or not.
or are you still considering rescued to be fluff?

If the mods don't close this thread I need to get some popcorn.

Again, this has been answered by GW's FAQ and should not be an issue.

Semantics and GW's crappy editing can be argued forever.

Naw wrote:
Again, this has been answered by GW's FAQ and should not be an issue.

No, it hasn't.