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.

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

That's not how language or logic works.

It is according to how GW writes rules.This is exactly how the language works in their rules.

One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

 doctortom wrote:


One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

As I have already pointed out, the case in question would be equivalent to an Army List Entry that included the option to purchase a Relic TWICE since that is how many times the occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

The Dominus will have repaired something instead of "firing one of his weapons" on both of the occasions it came up.

There is no limit on the number of times Master of Machines can be invoked, such as "once per Shooting Phase". If you feel there is a limit, then feel free to point it out in the actual rules.

You are not allowed to pretend things are in the rules that aren't. If your interpretation relies on 'make believe' then your argument is invalid.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

As I have already pointed out, the case in question would be equivalent to an Army List Entry that included the option to purchase a Relic TWICE since that is how many times the occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs.

No, it's actually your equivalent because in the case of purchasing, having two weapons would be the same as firing two weapons in your case. You trade one weapon for a relic, you still have a relic. Then, you trade one weapon for a relic and have a second relic. That's the same logic that you are using. You might not think it, but it is.

Going back, I find Kommissar Kel argued this, the post before you first piped up:

Kommissar Kel wrote:It is exactly the same as with relics: a model may exchange one weapon for an item from the following list.

Or for the Arcana Mechanicum; "A model may take one of the following:". If you take both a mask of the alpha dominus and an uncreator gauntlet; then you have taken more than one of the following.

If you choose to not fire both weapons in the shooting phase for 2 attempts at repair; then you have not fired more than the one weapon the rule allows.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

The Dominus will have repaired something instead of "firing one of his weapons" on both of the occasions it came up.

There is no limit on the number of times Master of Machines can be invoked, such as "once per Shooting Phase". If you feel there is a limit, then feel free to point it out in the actual rules.

It comes up once, not twice. Let's go back to the Master of Machines rule - I copied it from your first post, so I'm sure you'll agree that it's accurate:

"In each of your Shooting phases, instead of firing one of his weapons (controlling player’s choice), a Tech-Priest Dominus can choose either to repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon, or to restore a Wound lost earlier in the battle."


So, what's relevent? We have "in each of your shooting phases", so we're dealing with a shooting phase
"instead of" - you get to substitute something
"firing one weapon - one of the weapons you fire each shooting phase, as designated by the opening clause of the sentence.

So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

col_impact wrote:
You are not allowed to pretend things are in the rules that aren't. If your interpretation relies on 'make believe' then your argument is invalid.

Take your own advice, and don't pretend there aren't things in the rules that are. Your interpretation is the one relying on "make believe" - "let's make believe the rules for Master of Machines doesn't start with "each shooting "phase" and then reference using it instead of firing one weapon". Treating it as "a" weapon, or "each" weapon, as you are, is what's make beileve.

 doctortom wrote:


So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

In red I have noted where you are adding to the rules without justification. None of the stuff in red is actually in the rules.

This is what the rules actually say --> In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

###########################

Let's break the logical problem down to it's essentials.


Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your games of this video game you can fire as many times as you like.

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.



Now the situation described above is very easy to cast into the Dominus situation. The only real difference is that 40k metes out firing.

Dominus has 2 weapons and the ability to fire each of them once each Shooting phase. This permission is given by the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that loops through each model/weapon pairing such that the Dominus will have the occasion of TWICE 'firing one of his weapons'.

So Dominus can normally do this . . .

Press "A" then press "X" and then press "A" again. [Fire one of his weapons, select a new weapon, fire one of his weapons]


And if Dominus chooses to use the Master of Machines rule it works out thusly. We just swap 'Jump' for 'use Master of Machines'.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" then press "X" and then hold down SHIFT and press "A" again. [Use Master of Machines, select a new weapon, use Master of Machines]


This proves that it's the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that actually govern how many times the Master of Machines rule can be invoked.


########################

All of this has been just a longer explication of what has already been proven.

In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

In red I have noted where you are adding to the rules without justification. None of the stuff in red is actually in the rules.

This is what the rules actually say --> In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

 doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.

Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

 doctortom wrote:

You go to fire the second weapon. Is there a second weapon available to fire? Yes. Can you substitute Master of Machines? You go back to the rule and it says that in each shooting phase you may do it instead of firing one weapon. So, have you already substituted it for firing one weapon? Yes. That means no, you cannot substitute it again to do it a second time. You do not have permission to substitute a second time, and all your rationalizatiions are trying to do an end run around the limitation established in the Master of Machines rule itself.

I can use it a second time because the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" when he goes to shoot the second weapon.

 doctortom wrote:

Your video game jibber jabber is just an obfuscation showing that you do not comprehend what the Master of Machines rule is saying, because it clearly states using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. Substituting it twice instead of firing two weapons is not substituting it once instead of firing one weapon. Since you only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon, you do not get to substitute it more than once, no matter how many weapons you get to fire. You continue to ignore this fundamental limitation in the rule.

The thread should take note that doctortom has refused to address the video game example which utterly disproves his argument. Dodging a simple logical analysis like that is basically conceding the argument.

Further I have marked in red in the quote above where you are literally adding to the rules. The phrase is "firing one of his weapons" which you need to stick to.


Here is how it works out . . .


Shooting Sequence

Dominus selects his Volkite blaster.

Dominus goes to fire his blaster. Is Dominus "firing one of his weapons"? Yes. Dominus may use the Master of Machines rule instead.

Dominus selects his Macrostubber.

Dominus goes to fire his stubber. Is Dominus "firing one of his weapons"? Yes. Dominus may use the Master of Machines rule instead.



Also, you really need to comment on my video game example which completely disproves your argument.

Let's break the logical problem down to it's essentials.


Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your games of this video game you can fire as many times as you like.

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.



Now the situation described above is very easy to cast into the Dominus situation. The only real difference is that 40k metes out firing.

Dominus has 2 weapons and the ability to fire each of them once each Shooting phase. This permission is given by the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that loops through each model/weapon pairing such that the Dominus will have the occasion of TWICE 'firing one of his weapons'.

So Dominus can normally do this . . .

Press "A" then press "X" and then press "A" again. [Fire one of his weapons, select a new weapon, fire one of his weapons]


And if Dominus chooses to use the Master of Machines rule it works out thusly. We just swap 'Jump' for 'use Master of Machines'.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" then press "X" and then hold down SHIFT and press "A" again. [Use Master of Machines, select a new weapon, use Master of Machines]


This proves that it's the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that actually govern how many times the Master of Machines rule can be invoked.

I am awaiting your comments. A refusal to deal with this simple example will mean your argument is invalid.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.

Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

I AM adhering to the actual language; you are the one who isn't. You look at "firing one of his weapons", but are completely ignoring the first clauase of the sentence, "In each of your Shooting phases". and "instead of firing one of his weapons". So, in each of your shooting phases there is something you can do instead of firing one weapon. It does not say in each of you shooting phases" "instead of firing a weapon", which is what your interpretation boils down to. You only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon. You do not have permission to use it instead of firing two weapons. When it comes time to fire the second weapon, have you already used Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon? If so, then you have already used it instead of firing one weapon, and you do not get to use it again. That's clear to every single sentient person who has read the rule, except for you. It does not invoke the shooting sequence to see how many times you cana shoot, because you only have permission to use it once and therefore don't need to try to bring in a false argument that because you can shoot twice you can use it twice. The rule does not say you can use it instead of firing a weapon, or for each weapon you can fire you may substitute Master of Machines. It says you may do it instead of firing one weapon. Once you've done that, you've used up the allotment of "instead of"'s that you can do it with. They did acknowledge that you can replace either weapon in the rule, but said nothing about both. They said instead of one, fully realizing you have two weapons you can fire. This is basic Games Workshop language here.

Now, to quote you and turn your comments back onto you, until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid. You might as well drop this, as you think my argument is invalid, and I, along with all the other people who posted here criticizing you - as an aside, given that number of people critical of your argument, shouldn't you feel some obligation to examine your argument to see what might be wrong with it, as it was clearly not convincing people) see your argument as plainly ignoring what the rule states, trying to read in from other rules while ignoring part of the rule that would prevent you from doing so, and coming up with a conclusion that is entirely unjustified based on the rule.

EDIT: Oh, and "


doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.



Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

doctortom wrote:

You go to fire the second weapon. Is there a second weapon available to fire? Yes. Can you substitute Master of Machines? You go back to the rule and it says that in each shooting phase you may do it instead of firing one weapon. So, have you already substituted it for firing one weapon? Yes. That means no, you cannot substitute it again to do it a second time. You do not have permission to substitute a second time, and all your rationalizatiions are trying to do an end run around the limitation established in the Master of Machines rule itself.



I can use it a second time because the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" when he goes to shoot the second weapon.

doctortom wrote:

Your video game jibber jabber is just an obfuscation showing that you do not comprehend what the Master of Machines rule is saying, because it clearly states using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. Substituting it twice instead of firing two weapons is not substituting it once instead of firing one weapon. Since you only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon, you do not get to substitute it more than once, no matter how many weapons you get to fire. You continue to ignore this fundamental limitation in the rule.



The thread should take note that doctortom has refused to address the video game example which utterly disproves his argument. Dodging a simple logical analysis like that is basically conceding the argument. " Childish behavior on your part. Let the people in the thread note that you have offered an invalid argument that does not directly correlate with the rules we are dealing with here. Once you can cope with "Each shooting phase" and "instead of firing one weapon" in conjunction with each other, maybe you'll have a valid argument worth addressing. "instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase" is not adding to the rules. Go back and read the rule. You have "In each of your shooting phases" at the start, and "instead of firing one of your weapons" in the same sentence. It is not reading into it to say using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. If you think that is reading into you, you are having a major failure of your reading comprehension skills, and there's no helping you.

 doctortom wrote:


I AM adhering to the actual language; you are the one who isn't. You look at "firing one of his weapons", but are completely ignoring the first clauase of the sentence, "In each of your Shooting phases". and "instead of firing one of his weapons". So, in each of your shooting phases there is something you can do instead of firing one weapon. It does not say in each of you shooting phases" "instead of firing a weapon", which is what your interpretation boils down to. You only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon. You do not have permission to use it instead of firing two weapons. When it comes time to fire the second weapon, have you already used Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon? If so, then you have already used it instead of firing one weapon, and you do not get to use it again. That's clear to every single sentient person who has read the rule, except for you. It does not invoke the shooting sequence to see how many times you cana shoot, because you only have permission to use it once and therefore don't need to try to bring in a false argument that because you can shoot twice you can use it twice. The rule does not say you can use it instead of firing a weapon, or for each weapon you can fire you may substitute Master of Machines. It says you may do it instead of firing one weapon. Once you've done that, you've used up the allotment of "instead of"'s that you can do it with. They did acknowledge that you can replace either weapon in the rule, but said nothing about both. They said instead of one, fully realizing you have two weapons you can fire. This is basic Games Workshop language here.

The Master of Machines rule gives me permission to use the Master of Machines rule on any occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons". Since the Dominus has two weapons and a Mechadendrite harness, he can fire each of his weapons on separate occasions in the Shooting Sequence; therefore, I have permission to use the Master of Machines rule TWICE.

No where in the Master of Machines rule does it say 'once per shooting phase'.

"In each of you shooting phases" does not mean 'once per shooting phase'.


Let's revisit the Video Game example

Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your Shooting Phases in this video game you can fire as many times as you like. [There are other phases in the game, such as a fighting phase where you slug it out but do no shooting, etc.]

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.

"In each of your Shooting phases" is simply an arbitrary stretch of time where actions are allowed. It could just as easily say "in each of your bathroom breaks". So having the video game adopt GW's arbitrary temporal division has no consequence to the argument.

The only difference between the above example game and 40k is that I have changed a single term (the number of times you can fire) to infinity to prove that neither "in each of your Shooting Phases" nor "instead of firing one of your weapons" will restrict the Jump action to one occurence per Shooting Phase as your argument would have it.

In order for Jump (or the Master of Machines rule) to be restricted to one occurrence, there must be a logical restriction in the Jump rule (or the Master of Machines rule) along the lines of "once per Shooting Phase".

The video game example proves that your argument is invalid.

Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

Oddly enough your decision to no longer participate in this rule discussion coincides with my presenting you with a video game example that analytically proves your argument is invalid. So I will take your decision to no longer continue as a concession on your part since you left the video game example completely unanswered for.

Should you decide to rejoin the discussion (as I would encourage you to do so), I would ask that you be ready to analyze the logical statements involved as I have done.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

Oddly enough your decision to no longer participate in this rule discussion coincides with my presenting you with a video game example that analytically proves your argument is invalid. So I will take your decision to no longer continue as a concession on your part since you left the video game example completely unanswered for.

Should you decided to rejoin the discussion (as I would encourage you to do so), I would ask that you be ready to analyze the logical statements involved as I have done.

Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

 doctortom wrote:
Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

And yet you refuse to address the video game example that analytically disproves your argument.

So your argument as it stands now has been disproved.

You are choosing to leave the argument at the moment your argument has been disproved.



So at this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

Coming up with ridiculous analogies and claiming they somehow prove you right doesn't actually mean they do prove you right. It's actually better to let you think you won an internet argument than to engage any further, and much healthier for everyone else.

"Analytically disproves." Simply amazing mental gymnastics.

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

 Charistoph wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

True and correct. Video games coding still doesn't apply here, especially because even in games where you jump and are unable to shoot, do they have a predetermined window of time a la "shooting phase" or are you able to shoot again ad infinitum as soon as you hit the ground again, only until you jump. Or is it that you can jump all round, but then are unable to fire one of your weapons? In your case where you can't shoot while jumping, is it that you can't shoot "one weapon" while jumping, or that you can't shoot any weapons at all? Is a certain poster attempting to posit that even though a video game character may carry 2 weapons, if that character jumps he is unable to fire both regardless of wording of "may jump instead of shooting one weapon?" In that case, I guess I agree with him that if the Dominus uses Master of Machines, it may not fire any weapon at all while jumping.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

And yet you refuse to address the video game example that analytically disproves your argument.

So your argument as it stands now has been disproved.

You are choosing to leave the argument at the moment your argument has been disproved.



So at this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

I haven't been disproven, it's that you haven't been willing to acknowledge when you have been disproven, and just automatically dismiss any argument, even legitimate ones, so further conversation is useless. Your video game argument's been debunked by the others who posted since this (since you didn't want to accept my "it doesn't apply"). I's singing off because you're never going to admit that you aren't right, have shown a fundamental willingness to twist and distort other peoples' argument, and distort or ignore things that the the rulebook actually says. As I imagine that arguing with a 5 year old who just wants to automatically deny anything I say would give me the same feeling I have here, there's little reason for me to continue. Everyone else here would realize that this is why I am leaving. It has nothing to do with your arguments, and you continuing to want to crow about my planning on leaving the discussion just emphasizes your "character" in these arguments. I wouldn't have even come back for this post except for the vain hope that you might realize some of the problems of your behavior in this and can mend your ways. I suspect it won't do any good, but I can hope that you can evolve into somebody it might be worth having a conversation with. Until then there's little point in arguing with you. Good bye, and I apologize to the other people who have had to endure all of this. Jacksmiles, good luck if you decide to continue.

As it's endlessly cycling, probably needs locking anyway. Mod?

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

Coming up with ridiculous analogies and claiming they somehow prove you right doesn't actually mean they do prove you right. It's actually better to let you think you won an internet argument than to engage any further, and much healthier for everyone else.

"Analytically disproves." Simply amazing mental gymnastics.

The video game argument uses the same language as the Dominus example and demonstrates that the phrases "in each of your shooting phases" and "instead of firing one of your weapons" do not apply a restriction along the lines of "once per shooting phase".

My argument is proved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


I haven't been disproven, it's that you haven't been willing to acknowledge when you have been disproven, and just automatically dismiss any argument, even legitimate ones, so further conversation is useless. Your video game argument's been debunked by the others who posted since this (since you didn't want to accept my "it doesn't apply"). I's singing off because you're never going to admit that you aren't right, have shown a fundamental willingness to twist and distort other peoples' argument, and distort or ignore things that the the rulebook actually says. As I imagine that arguing with a 5 year old who just wants to automatically deny anything I say would give me the same feeling I have here, there's little reason for me to continue. Everyone else here would realize that this is why I am leaving. It has nothing to do with your arguments, and you continuing to want to crow about my planning on leaving the discussion just emphasizes your "character" in these arguments. I wouldn't have even come back for this post except for the vain hope that you might realize some of the problems of your behavior in this and can mend your ways. I suspect it won't do any good, but I can hope that you can evolve into somebody it might be worth having a conversation with. Until then there's little point in arguing with you. Good bye, and I apologize to the other people who have had to endure all of this. Jacksmiles, good luck if you decide to continue.

Instead of making veiled insults as to my 'character', why don't you instead address the video game example which proves you wrong?

If you cannot address my video game example it proves your argument is incorrect and based on false premises.


At this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

Since you are not actually reading any of my posts, your posts have no weight in this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
As it's endlessly cycling, probably needs locking anyway. Mod?

Instead of endlessly avoiding the video game example, why don't you simply address it?

The video game example proves that your argument is based on false premises and is therefore invalid.