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:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rport ed for rule 1

Can is allowing you to perform the action. It is what gives you permission to perform that activity. It is explicit permission to perform that activity.

The thread is clearly done, as only one person appears unable to read the clearly presented rule.

I#ve quoted myself, as nothing stated contradicts it.

Reported tda again for rule 1.

If you think I'm being offensive, please realise that there is a difference between being blunt and offensive. You need to learn what english is, as you are arguing a non-existent point. Can is Not, and will never be permission. It's a term that indicates a possibility.; Read a dictionary, and you'll find that out. It's basic English you learn as a child. The two points I've given repeatedly state that you are not allowed to exceed both a single model, and are not allowed to sacrifice more than once per casting.


So, let me spell it out in basic terms. The use of can does not, will not, and will never give you any form of permission if there is a concrete limit in place.

From dictionary.com (as OED wont let you look up any longer)

can
1.
to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:
She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2.
to know how to:
He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3.
to have the power or means to:
A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4.
to have the right or qualifications to:
He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5.
may; have permission to:
Can I speak to you for a moment?
6.
to have the possibility:
A coin can land on either side.

Bolded all the examples showing you to be utterly, one hundred percent incorrect on "can" never prooviding for allowance / permission / capability to perform something.

It is both permission and an option.

Youre actually just being rude, especially with your "stupid" comment.

Ignore. NOt worth anyones time any longer, as the actual rules - not TDAs made up version - are clear

If you wish to sacrifice ANOTHER model you MAY do so, if you roll a 3 or less.

There is only one thing in that entire post that proves me wrong, it's point 5.

Bluntness often does come off as rudeness. I was stating my opinion of you.

And again, you have permission to sacrifice another model. But you don't have permission to ignore EITHER of the limitations. In the same way that Predatory fighter gives you permission to make a bonus supporting attack, this comes into play, you roll a 1-3, make another sacrifice, the rules limit you to one sacrifice, therefore you cannot sacrifice.

Then youre violating the forum rules, and knowingly.

Debate the argument, not the person. You have now finally admitted you were wrong, so please apologise.

You have explicit permission to sacrifice another, i.e. an additional, extra to the former, model. this is explicit permission to sacrifce more than one model in total, becuase of the word "another"

I dont expect you to back down, just slowly demolishing every goal shifting argument youre coming up with.

Just put him on ignore and move on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then youre violating the forum rules, and knowingly.

Debate the argument, not the person. You have now finally admitted you were wrong, so please apologise.

You have explicit permission to sacrifice another, i.e. an additional, extra to the former, model. this is explicit permission to sacrifce more than one model in total, becuase of the word "another"

I dont expect you to back down, just slowly demolishing every goal shifting argument youre coming up with.

I won't admit I'm wrong, because I'm not.

The permission granted is to sacrifice another model. You are still forced to submit to the limitations. If there was a sentence giving you permission to ignore the limitations, then yes, you can sacrifice a second model.

However, you are told to merely do it.

Being told to roll a dice and sacrifice another model is a very different thing than being told to ignore the first part of the item's rules. Which, as we aren't told to do so, those limitations are still in effect.

Davall wrote:
Just put him on ignore and move on.

A very wise choice where TDA is concerned.

I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Based on the quality of his posts on both rules and tactics, I question whether or not he actually plays this game.

On topic: Nos has pretty much nailed it. No reason to continue beating a dead horse because one guy won't admit he's wrong.

Saldiven wrote:

Davall wrote:
Just put him on ignore and move on.

A very wise choice where TDA is concerned.

I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Based on the quality of his posts on both rules and tactics, I question whether or not he actually plays this game.

On topic: Nos has pretty much nailed it. No reason to continue beating a dead horse because one guy won't admit he's wrong.

When I am wrong, I admit it.

This entire thread has been people trying to convince me that the second sacrifice is explicit permission to break the rules set forth for the dagger.

When in fact it is just permission to sacrifice a second model.

There is no exception to the two limitations.

Saldiven wrote:

Davall wrote:
Just put him on ignore and move on.

A very wise choice where TDA is concerned.

I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Based on the quality of his posts on both rules and tactics, I question whether or not he actually plays this game.

Check my sig. One game in 3-4 months, and he's some sort of expert?
I'm an arrogant bastard, but at least I'll admit when I'm wrong.

 thedarkavenger wrote:




No. You cannot choose which parts of the rules apply when and where. Unless it's explicitly stated that you can exceed the limit given, which it isn't(can is not explicit permission, it's a possibility rendered impossible by the presence of a concrete limit). You must apply all the rules to all of it.

So what does this sentence mean?

On a roll of 3 or less, the sacrifice has not generated enough power- you can immediately sacrifice another model from the unit and roll again, or accept the original result."

Saldiven wrote:

Davall wrote:
Just put him on ignore and move on.

A very wise choice where TDA is concerned.

I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Based on the quality of his posts on both rules and tactics, I question whether or not he actually plays this game.

On topic: Nos has pretty much nailed it. No reason to continue beating a dead horse because one guy won't admit he's wrong.

Indeed, on ignore, as they cannot read plain English, insult others by stating that they can't read English, get proven wrong, and still won't back down and act like an adult.

Time to move on, and leave TDA to stew in a broth of error, lightly seasoned with the salty tears of failure

lol darkavenger is changing the rules to suit him again is he lol. From the slann who is allowed to use 4 lores with master of them all to the killing blow rule til now lol. You are always changing the rule to the way you see it and no one else .

Now on topic you can keep killing til you roll 4+ soon as you do no more killing

Ogre, just before you get jumped on for not quoting it 100% correctly, with Masters-level English Language skills, you can keep killing untill you roll the 4+, or are the last one left.


As an aside, Im sorry TDA, but your calling someone out and arguing because of the use of "can" as a permissive, and arguing over the fact that in a complete vacuum, the sentences real one way (whereas we, as in everyone else, are telling you that contextually, its different), would be blunt.

Calling it "basic English", and suggesting that a dictionary is read, thats rude.

The irony here, however, is that what you are calling "basic English" is far more advanced than the concept of context, which, according to the UK education system, at all levels, is how people of all ages learn the definition and understanding of something.
Failure to grasp context, therefore, means that it is you who may want to revisit basic English.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
There is no counter. The two terms that give limitations outweigh the the use of the term that offers possibility

That was not my point. My point was that what was "given" was a series of rules that involve the "possibility", and that this sequence may only be followed to it's end once per casting.

Once per casting you may do this thing, which includes:

1. sacrificing a model
2. rolling a D6
3. on a 4+ a die is generated
4. on a 3 or less, no die is generated, return to Step 1.

I believe that's a perfectly accurate reading of the rules.
Am I being clear? Not trying to belittle anyone; just honestly asking if what I'm saying makes sense. If not, I will try to communicate my point more effectively. If so, then the opposing side must either prove how this is incorrect or concede the debate.

Warpsolution wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
There is no counter. The two terms that give limitations outweigh the the use of the term that offers possibility

That was not my point. My point was that what was "given" was a series of rules that involve the "possibility", and that this sequence may only be followed to it's end once per casting.

Once per casting you may do this thing, which includes:

1. sacrificing a model
2. rolling a D6
3. on a 4+ a die is generated
4. on a 3 or less, no die is generated, return to Step 1.

I believe that's a perfectly accurate reading of the rules.
Am I being clear? Not trying to belittle anyone; just honestly asking if what I'm saying makes sense. If not, I will try to communicate my point more effectively. If so, then the opposing side must either prove how this is incorrect or concede the debate.

That's clear to everyone but a single person. You'll need to admit that no matter how clear something is, you'll still find trolls on the internet.

Frankly, I'm tempted to ask a mod to lock this thread as, one inexplicably stubborn individual aside, a consensus has been reached.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Frankly, I'm tempted to ask a mod to lock this thread as, one inexplicably stubborn individual aside, a consensus has been reached.

+1

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
There is no counter. The two terms that give limitations outweigh the the use of the term that offers possibility

That was not my point. My point was that what was "given" was a series of rules that involve the "possibility", and that this sequence may only be followed to it's end once per casting.

Once per casting you may do this thing, which includes:

1. sacrificing a model
2. rolling a D6
3. on a 4+ a die is generated
4. on a 3 or less, no die is generated, return to Step 1.

I believe that's a perfectly accurate reading of the rules.
Am I being clear? Not trying to belittle anyone; just honestly asking if what I'm saying makes sense. If not, I will try to communicate my point more effectively. If so, then the opposing side must either prove how this is incorrect or concede the debate.

That's clear to everyone but a single person. You'll need to admit that no matter how clear something is, you'll still find trolls on the internet.

The process does return to step one, but it stops there due to two limitations. Even if we assume that there is permission to ignore the limitation of one model(which there isn't) you're still limited to sacrificing once.

One to ponder then it seems.