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.

Hollismason wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Haemmorage, Combustion etc

So are you arguing that a Punisher isn't Heavy 20 as no other weapon in the game is RoF 20?

You keep using the term strawman, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fractions are part of the set of real numbers. So are irrational numbers. The point being made that you've missed is that you don't understand the maths you're trying to use. Hence the inaccuracies.

Ok so there's no result from rolling zero dice to hit. Why do you need a result? Not having a result allows you to continue resolving the power without creating house rules. Having a result in a number of hits forces you to create houserules to resolve those hits.

I think you maybe need to learn what a false analogy is and what deductive reasoning is that you seem to not be able to understand the basic concept of what I laid out.

For someone with a math degree you seem to have hard problem with the latter as we know specifically you cannot pick a negative number , nor can you pick a fraction as there are no way to resolve that, there is no way to resolve something that has a 0 rate of fire. We know the range of what it should be and our logic tells us that it cannot be X, Y, Z, so A is the only possible answer.

The problem is you're not using deductive reasoning. You're stating incorrect premises and then drawing incorrect conclusions that aren't even based on those premises.

For instance we know the resolution of rolling zero dice to hit. You get zero hits (and zero misses). So to say it is unresolvable is false. There is just no action for us to take.

Also even it is was unresolvable that doesn't mean it is not an option. For instance applying say 3 wounds to a vehicle is unresolvable if the vehicle has no wounds profile. By your logic we must therefore conclude all vehicles have wounds.

What you need for deductive reasoning is a pair of premises which are correct and which when taken together give another piece of information.

My advice is to not try to use deductive reasoning or maths until you understand it.

Maybe you should actually take your own advice? Cause you seem to like to use false analogies and False Dichotomies a lot.

Cause you are getting something from nothing, first you are saying you can take an action that has no action, then claim its the same as averting an action which is false.

2nd your making a false analogy between something that we know the result of " What happens if you cast a psychic power on a rhino that gives it wounds" , " Nothing" is my answer not " Rhinos have wounds".

Which I don't even know where you got that from? Like maybe if you rearranged the letters in the words I used in my post you could make that statement. I don't know maybe you print screen and William Burroughs style the page then assume the result as the post someone made.


1. We know that it cannot have a 0 rate of fire as it must roll something as rolling nothing would mean you didn't roll to hit with a witchfire which works just like a shooting attack that requires you to roll something to hit not nothing.
2. We know it doesn't automatically hit because its makes no such statement.
3. We know it does not have a negative rate of fire
4. We know you can not choose a Fraction as it is impossible to hit.
5. We know the least dice would be 1.


That's all logic, I don't know where your getting all your other bs from, but it's funny because you do this in every thread you get backed into a corner with, like your gonna pull some sort of magic trick and then TA DA the rules of Logic and Reason no longer apply.

2nd your making a false analogy between something that we know the result of " What happens if you cast a psychic power on a rhino that gives it wounds" , " Nothing" is my answer not " Rhinos have wounds". 

So why does nothing happen? You must apply the wounds and have no value to resolve that against.

Are you saying when you must do something but don't have the value required to resolve that then nothing happens. This is correct yes?

We know the PS doesn't have a profile stating how many shots it has. We know a Rhino doesn't have a profile stating how many wounds it has.

We know we must roll to hit with PS. We know we must apply the wounds to the Rhino.

Please argue against any of those 4 premises with rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We know the PS doesn't have a profile stating how many shots it has. We know a Rhino doesn't have a profile stating how many wounds it has.

We know we must roll to hit with PS. We know we must apply the wounds to the Rhino.

Please argue why I can't eat your children because of this.

You absolutely cannot eat children because of Psychic Scream, I don't even know where you are getting this from? I mean seriously not only is it monstrous, but literal murder to kill and eat a child because of a rules dispute. Look it's like if I had a tank right that was purple, and you have a bird that was an orange, then we threw them at each other and they exploded into glitter dust. I mean does that answer your question?

Your concession is accepted.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Your concession is accepted.

Oh my bad, I thought this was the part where were were making strawman arguments and illogical analogies. Please accept this video of Mr Rogers singing as an apology.

Thank you for conceding glad I was able to help you understand the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Thank you for conceding glad I was able to help you understand the rules.

I don't understand what you mean, would you please cite 4 sources on how you did so and submit it to my office by 9am on Friday along with a blood sample? Please use MLA standard.

Removed.

You mean like making statements that you are accepting concessions instead of just letting it?

Gravmyr wrote:
You mean like making statements that you are accepting concessions instead of just letting it?

Good point well made. Apologies.

Yes, please explain to me again how rolling nothing is the exact same as rolling something. I mean that's some serious mental gymnastics. Then you go on with this insane, please sort 4 rules sources like we're in some sort of Phoenix Wright run courtroom drama. It's peculiar in a way that I can not describe.

Please though keep explaining how nothing is something though.

I've already explained exactly my point and why it's true. You've come up with false analogies, strawman arguments, and illogical fallacies. I don't have to point to a source in the rules that states " You must be logical when you read these rules".

Same old same old.