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.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The rule for Army List Entry allows me to access the BRB definitions. Everything works according to RAW. Can you be specific as to what your problem is? You are just mindlessly chanting the same mantra over and over. I have already reported you for disruptive posting.
Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No specific reference required.
Like 'weapon' or 'turn', 'grenade' is a defined and indexed term in the BRB.
Grenade would have to be capitalized as a proper noun for you to not automatically access the BRB provided definition.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The rule for Army List Entry allows me to access the BRB definitions. Everything works according to RAW. Can you be specific as to what your problem is? You are just mindlessly chanting the same mantra over and over. I have already reported you for disruptive posting.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.
Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.
Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
There are separate indexed entries for heavy weapons and heavy vehicles. The Army List Entry rules allow you to access both definitions. You apply the rules from the correct referenced section based on context. If 'heavy' is listed in the weapon's type it is a heavy weapon per the Heavy Weapon rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:00:36
heavy is a defined term in the BRB therefore heavy flamers are heavy weapons. Hur de dur.
Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.
Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?
There are separate indexed entries for heavy weapons and heavy vehicles. The Army List Entry rules allow you to access both definitions. You apply the rules from the correct referenced section based on context. If 'heavy' is listed in the weapon's type it is a heavy weapon per the Heavy Weapon rules.
Where do we find heavy as the listed type then?
And if I have a weapon named "chainfist" it isn't listed in the index, how do i find that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:04:47
WEAPON PROFILES
Range
Strength
AP Type
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: Assault, Bomb, Heavy, Ordnance, Pistol, Primary Weapon, Rapid Fire or Salvo. These rules (found below) measure a weapon’s portability and affect the way they can be fired, depending on whether or not the model carrying them moved that turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:06:06
Brother Ramses wrote:Doesn't matter. Unlike a krak, frag, and melta that specifically tell you to reference the BRB, the wargear entry for rad grenades does no such thing. The Unusual Grenade stance/argument is a dead end because of this RAW.
No, it is not RAW. Can you demonstrate a non-BRB Grenade that is presented in this manner?
Ceann wrote:I am sorry you feel this way.
Can you elaborate for me a circumstance where I am pursuing this "special rules are basic rules in special rules". I actually care about your understanding of the rules, compared to Word_Soup's shenanigans, he is looking to "win at any cost" not to be correct.
As I explained before. The game's rules are that units move 6". Nothing in Movement changes that or allows for that. The introduction talks about how they move, not distance. The exampled units have ways of ignoring Terrain, for example. However, Vehicles, Bikes, Cavalry, and Beasts can all move up to 12", and they are never noted as special rules, but do break this basic game rule.
Your response was that they were basic rules for unit types.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are? It's the word 'grenades' that leads you to that section in the BRB.
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are?
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
Yes Col...
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex. The datasheet tells us to the page to access for the rules of rad grenades.
If you open the BRB and look at the core rules, the items you reference are located in the core rules section. "grenades" are not a rule they are a weapon, listed in the weapon section. "grenades" do not apply to models, rules apply to models. "grenades" is not a basic rule.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:18:40
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex.
In the rules for 'grenades' you will find that 'rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
There are no rules for grenades.
There are rules for weapons.
These weapons happen to have the names grenades.
Grenades are not rules, rules are in all the previous sections.
Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.
It doesn't actually direct you to the BRB though. It just says 'assault and defensive grenades'. How do you know to look at the BRB for what those are? It's the word 'grenades' that leads you to that section in the BRB.
'rad grenades' say 'grenades' so you similarly look to the BRB for 'grenades'.
And if we go look for "grenades" on the in the BRB which "grenades" are we using? There are no "grenades" listed here. That is why the reference isn't valid, the rules for rad grenades are located in the codex.
In the rules for 'grenades' you will find that 'rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
I did not find "rad grenades" in the entire BRB. I searched everywhere.
We already went over this and you told me where to find the wargear named "rad grenades" in the Codex:IA.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:23:28
Wow, the last 6 pages of four people trying to prove who's the biggest troll. Another thread so muddied by stupid arguments that the original query has lost all meaning.
GRENADES OF THE 41 st MILLENNIUM
Grenades are small hand-held canisters packed with explosive charges and, sometimes, a more exotic payload, such as stumm gas. Grenades can be used to drive troops out of cover, set up smokescreens or even cripple tanks.
Some grenades can be used to make shooting attacks or attacks in the Fight sub-phase, albeit to different effect. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.
VEHICLES, GUN EMPLACEMENTS AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or
Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have
to be clamped in place to maximise effect. All buildings are attacked in close combat as if
they were vehicles and therefore any grenade that can be used to attack a vehicle in close
combat can also be used against a building.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make
one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses.
Different grenades have different profiles when used in this manner, as explained below.
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered
in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades
cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
ASSAULT GRENADES
Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous frag grenade, can be hurled at the enemy as your
warriors charge into battle. The lethal storm of shrapnel from these grenades drives
opponents further under cover for a few precious moments, allowing attackers more
time to close in and, hopefully, get the first blow in against a disoriented foe.
Shooting
When a unit armed with assault grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose
to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models equipped with assault grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for
charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative in the
ensuing combat.
PLASMA GRENADES
Plasma grenades are a highly advanced type of assault grenade, commonly employed by
the Eldar.
Shooting
When a unit armed with plasma grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models equipped with plasma grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for
charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal Initiative step in the
ensuing combat.
Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures
Unlike ordinary assault grenades, plasma grenades can be used against vehicles, gun
emplacements and Monstrous Creatures in the Assault phase, using the following profile:
DEFENSIVE GRENADES
Defensive grenades, such as the photon grenades of the Tau, which emit multi-spectrum
light and a sonic burst, have dual uses. When being charged, these are thrown to
disorient the enemy attack; against shooting, they’re hurled to throw up clouds of
concealing gas or smoke.
Shooting
When a unit armed with defensive grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Models charging a unit that includes any models equipped with defensive grenades do not
gain bonus Attacks from charging (pg 49). However, if the charged unit was already
locked in combat from a previous turn, or has Gone to Ground, these grenades have no
effect and the attackers gain bonus Attacks as normal.
HAYWIRE GRENADES
Haywire grenades release electromagnetic pulses that damage vehicles.
Shooting
When a unit armed with haywire grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can
choose to throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, haywire grenades have no effect. When used in
assault against vehicles, haywire grenades have the following profile:
KRAK GRENADES
Krak grenades are implosive charges designed to crack vehicle armour.
Shooting
When a unit armed with krak grenades makes a shooting attack, one model can choose to
throw a grenade, rather than using another shooting weapon.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak
grenades have no effect. When they are used in assaults against vehicles, gun
emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, krak grenades have the following profile:
MELTA BOMBS
Melta bombs are fusion charges designed to burn through an armoured hull in a matter
of seconds.
Shooting
Melta bombs are cumbersome devices. Melta bombs cannot be used to make a shooting
attack.
Assault
Unless used in assaults against vehicles, gun emplacements or Monstrous Creatures,
melta bombs have no effect. When used in assaults against vehicles, buildings, gun
emplacements or Monstrous Creatures, melta bombs have the following profile:
In there you will find that rad grenades are Unusual Grenades.
I did not find "rad grenades" in the entire BRB. I searched everywhere.
We already went over this and you told me where to find the wargear named "rad grenades" in the Codex:IA.
I found 'grenades' in the BRB.
I did not find a definition for 'grenades' in C:IA. Therefore, in order to decipher what 'grenades' in C:IA means I am required to use the BRB definition.
Yes I know what a weapon is.
A grenade is a weapon.
"rad grenades" is special wargear.
So rad grenades is a kind of wargear, just like chainfist is a kind of weapon.
Yup, and a Frag grenade is also special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon.
A rad grenades is also special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon.
Under the grenade rules you will find that a rad grenade is an Unusual Grenade.
Spoiler:
Unusual Grenades
Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.
You will find the special rule associated with the effect of the Unusual Grenade in C:IA.
Spoiler:
During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 04:42:59
WEAPONS make ATTACKS.
GRENADES are not rules.
GRENADES are WEAPONS.
WEAPONS have rules, GRENADES do not have rules.
Everything listed on page 180 that you quoted, those of the names of WEAPONS of the type grenade.
Grenades are not an independent entity.
Grenades are weapons, located in the weapons section.
Rad grenades are not a weapon.
I will not find "rad grenades" are Unusual Grenades.
Rad grenades are of the type "Special Wargear" in Codex: IA, not of the type Weapons.
The DATASHEET for an Inquisitor where you can purchase them tells you the name, and of the page, within the codex with rules for the Special Wargear "rad grenades".
And in the codex... "the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Therefore "rad grenades" are special wargear, not a Weapon with the type grenades.
Basic Vs Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
As you can see, grenades are not a basic rule, we do not refer to grenades unless we are told to do so. The other questions you had about ID any anything are covered under the rules of Basic vs Advanced which tells us the basic rules that always apply from the BRB.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 05:00:17
I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 05:11:05
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
WEAPONS make ATTACKS.
GRENADES are not rules.
GRENADES are WEAPONS.
WEAPONS have rules, GRENADES do not have rules.
Everything listed on page 180 that you quoted, those of the names of WEAPONS of the type grenade.
Grenades are not an independent entity.
Incorrect. They have their own set of rules just as ranged weapons have their own set of rules.
Ceann wrote: Grenades are weapons, located in the weapons section.
Rad grenades are not a weapon.
I will not find "rad grenades" are Unusual Grenades.
Rad grenades are of the type "Special Wargear" in Codex: IA, not of the type Weapons.
The DATASHEET for an Inquisitor where you can purchase them tells you the name, and of the page, within the codex with rules for the Special Wargear "rad grenades".
And in the codex... "the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Therefore "rad grenades" are special wargear, not a Weapon with the type grenades.
Basic Vs Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
As you can see, grenades are not a basic rule, we do not refer to grenades unless we are told to do so. The other questions you had about ID any anything are covered under the rules of Basic vs Advanced which tells us the basic rules that always apply from the BRB.
Wargear is an umbrella term for weapons and equipment
Spoiler:
8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.
Special issue wargear includes both weapons and equipment (e.g. melta bombs and auspexes)
rad grenades are called out as grenades in the rad grenades rule. There is no definition for 'grenade' in C:IA so we look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenade'.
A rad grenade is a kind of special wargear, a kind of grenade, and a kind of weapon. Under the grenade rules you will find that a rad grenade is an Unusual Grenade. You will find the special rule associated with the effect of the Unusual Grenade in C:IA.
If you know what RAW is then you know that I am correct about the status of unusual grenades you are fabricating nonsense.
"During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold)."
During, isn't in the index, in which, isn't in the index, launches, isn't in the index, penalty, isni't in the index.
We can go down this trivial road you have invented forever playing word games and finding things that aren't in the index, for which you still have never told us where RAW states you are even supposed to do.
The BASIC RULES are allowed to be referenced per the basic vs advanced which states...
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
If you are attempting to consult the BRB for any other reason, UNLESS EXPLICITY INSTRUCTED ON THE DATASHEET, then you are not allowed to do so.
'grenade" is not a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule. You are not permitted to access the index because it is not any of the above listed items either.
"Called out" is not a rule either. Another fabrication.
Just like the "consult the index" rule.
Stop inventing rules.
Can we be finished with word soup now?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/18 05:39:41
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
Why would you look to the definition of grenade?
Grenades are a weapon, grenades are using to make a shooting attack or melee attack.
The rules for "rad grenades" do not tell you to make an attack, so you are not given permission to access grenade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/18 05:42:09
Brother Ramses wrote: I remember a long, long, long time ago when col_impact preached the RAW of Cataphracti terminator armor not being terminator armor for all purposes. Perfectly following the RAW that did in fact justify a captain in said armor of being able to take a bike. It didn't matter that terminator was in the name, RAW was the RAW. How quickly his allegiance to the RAW is cast away when inconvenient or does not fit his narrative.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
The above is not a disruptive post. It states the facts of your argument clearly and concisely to counter your continued claims of having a RAW argument. It is truly the only way to counter your copy paste tactic of false and misleading information.
The Cataphractii argument was made perfectly according to RAW. If you feel otherwise feel free to open up a new thread and I will continue to school you on what RAW is.
I actually agreed with you on the RAW that Cataphracti was not terminator armor for all purposes. The rest of your argument was rubbish, but I agreed with you on that point and that point alone. And yet now, you disregard the RAW of the wargear entry completely and instead create an unsupported naming convention/index "rule" that you then postulate is RAW with absolutely nothing to base it upon. You go from one end of the spectrum in that being called terminator armor is not enough to be considered terminator armor for all purposes, yet being called grenade is somehow allows you now to ignore the RAW of the wargear entry and make the assumption that you are supposed to reference the BRB section on grenades.
Zero consistency except in creating rules from RAI assumptions.
the rad grenade entry calls itself 'grenades'. It's lower case so I have no choice but to look for a definition of 'grenades'. The C:IA does not supply a definition for 'grenades';therefore, I look to the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. If 'grenades' were capitalized as a proper noun I would not have to accept it as a named unique entity but since its not capitalized I have to use the BRB provided definition.
All RAI with zero reference to actual rules.
You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.
It does not.
Rules in the Codex take PRECEDENCE over every other "publication".
The basic rules state... "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
Why would you look to the definition of grenade?
Grenades are a weapon, grenades are using to make a shooting attack or melee attack.
The rules for "rad grenades" do not tell you to make an attack, so you are not given permission to access grenade.
C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades'. Therefore, I must look to the BRB for a definition.
Not all grenades make attacks. Unusual grenades do not make attacks. 'Rad grenades' are Unusual Grenades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: It does not.
Rules in the Codex take PRECEDENCE over every other "publication".
The basic rules state... "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "
You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.
There is no conflict.
The codex rule is using a BRB defined term and not providing its own definition. I have no choice but to access the BRB to decipher it.
'grenades' is not capitalized. It's a defined term in the BRB. You have no argument.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/18 05:48:47
