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.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
It really does boil down to two choices.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
The discussion for setting up a game. Lance is so concerned over one datasheet being a reason to drop a game, that he didn't seem to realize that whole armies have been a cause.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Which one do you pick?
It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
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.
Charistoph wrote: It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
If you can use overwritten datasheets from index then yes you can. Nerf in codex only applies to entry in codex. Nerf in FAQ specifically refers to codex. So if I can pick up older datasheet then I can ignore nerfs. Of course then if entry gets new options I can't use them but small price to pay for getting index commisar.
More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 08:11:55
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
It really does boil down to two choices.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Which one do you pick?
Where some people say it's nerfs to units, other people see GW deciding they can't be bothered to update models for options they used to allow before the Chapterhouse decision, then just decided to cut out options that aren't in the box. In many cases it doesn't have anything to do with a "token attempt at balancing". That you suggest it seems somewhat of a joke seeing as you still use the most recent point costs - the usual place people look at for balancing - so there should still be a "token attempt at balance" because of that. Not to mention the fact that there may be special unit-specific rules for the unit in the codex that you don't have in the index which you wouldn't be able to take advantage of by using the index datasheet.
The counterpoint to your qustion is this:
On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission) to use just about any of your 40k models, even older ones with options you used to be able to get and on the other you have a game where you don't get the opportunity to use some of your models merely because GW didn't feel like updating their miniatures to include options they used to allow.
Which one do you pick?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 13:57:18
No, I am talking about units literally nerfed both RaW and "RaI", Conscripts and Commissars being the prime example. If you decide that the latest datasheet doesn't matter and you can continue to use the old Index datasheet, you're opening the door for people to use old, non-nerfed units and not even the RaI-Brigade here on Dakka would accept that.
doctortom wrote: On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission)
Literally everything is with opponents permission. If I don't wanna play against a Knight, or against blue models, I can refuse to play them. We're talking about the bare minimum that can be expected when two people who have never met decide to play, that is the actual concrete rules, as written down in words. Not house rules, not flakey "with permission" rules. The actual rules.
doctortom wrote: On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission) to use just about any of your 40k models, even older ones with options you used to be able to get and on the other you have a game where you don't get the opportunity to use some of your models merely because GW didn't feel like updating their miniatures to include options they used to allow.
Which one do you pick?
The latter, because that's what the rules say. It sucks but it's not unprecedented. Anyone who has ever owned Vect, Pariahs or a whole bunch of other models will attest to that. This is what "counts-as" is for.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 14:02:05
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
EXCELLENT!
So we are back to this.
Spoiler:
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
Which means your last few responses were a whole pile of bs. Glad to see I wasn't "misinterpreting your argument" or whatever other nonsense you claim I was doing.
You need to provide proof that Model is being used the way you say it is.Try not to use circular reasoning this time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 16:34:11
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Charistoph wrote: It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
If you can use overwritten datasheets from index then yes you can. Nerf in codex only applies to entry in codex. Nerf in FAQ specifically refers to codex. So if I can pick up older datasheet then I can ignore nerfs. Of course then if entry gets new options I can't use them but small price to pay for getting index commisar.
Apologies, I wasn't clear. If the nerf you are talking about is from the Wargear Options that appear on the model (such as no access to a Power Axe in Codex while having access in Index), then it is possible. However, if the nerfs were only in other areas, then no. If all the Options are the same, then one uses the Codex version.
Conversely, if the Codex Abilities carry a Buff, but only the Index version has the Wargear options of the model, then you will be using the Index version with the "nerfed" Abilities.
Lance845 wrote:More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
Incorrect. It is relevant as they are part of two people organizing a game.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet, while you will need to bring up your desire to use the Index version. If you think we have said anything else, then you have been misreading what we have said.
It is the same with FAQ packs. I don't need to inform my opponent that I plan on using the GWFAQs, but I do need to inform my opponent that I plan on using the ITC format for the game.
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 16:39:34
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.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet,
What is the point of saying this? Can you really not understand that that has been stated repeatedly by us?
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
Again, you take things from my words that I didn't say.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
EXCELLENT!
So we are back to this.
Spoiler:
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
Which means your last few responses were a whole pile of bs. Glad to see I wasn't "misinterpreting your argument" or whatever other nonsense you claim I was doing.
You need to provide proof that Model is being used the way you say it is.Try not to use circular reasoning this time.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
"It says Model as I think it says model because it grants the permission I think it does, and it grants the permission I think it does because they use Model the way I think they use Model."
A is true because of B and B has to be true because of A.
You have got nothing.Your arguments credibility is non-existent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 16:54:54
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
"It says Model as I think it says model because it grants the permission I think it does, and it grants the permission I think it does because they use Model the way I think they use Model."
A is true because of B and B has to be true because of A.
You have got nothing.Your arguments credibility is non-existent.
"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range –certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box[/b, or some characters on bikes, for example. Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."
When they give something as an example and refer to "these models", it's an example of using what procedure/rules they've lined out. There's no circular reasoning here to anybody who has even the slightest amount of common sense; something given as an example for a question - in this case dreads with weapons no longer in the box - that we are told is okay to use, then we take them at their word that it's okay to use, following the procedures they laid out to use it. You claining circular reasoning is a strawman argument, yet another misrepresentation of our arguments and is you arguing in bad faith.Not to mention being extremely myopic for claining you can't do what something they've just taken the time out to explain how you can.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 17:30:01
And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet,
What is the point of saying this? Can you really not understand that that has been stated repeatedly by us?
Because of this statement:
Lance845 wrote: When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.
Every single game that is not a tournament game requires opponent permission for everything (technically so do tournament games, but they lose out on the tournament scene if they refuse it). If someone can refuse a game on a fully legal codex army, then that is part of the "more permission {for} setting up to play a game".
Lance845 wrote:
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
Again, you take things from my words that I didn't say.
Mainly because you seem to have difficulty parsing anything I say or deliberately choose to misrepresent what I did say.
You are saying one thing, "I would never refuse a game under these circumstances", but then also stating another later one, "I don't think this is a legal army to be playing with", which then implies, "I will not play against your army, because I think it is cheating using an FAQ I don't agree with." Your actions are speaking louder than your words.
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.
doctortom wrote: You claining circular reasoning is a strawman argument, yet another misrepresentation of our arguments and is you arguing in bad faith.
You still don't seem to actually understand what a strawman is.
Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
If anyone else has anything new to bring to the table I'd love to see it. Otherwise were done here.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
If anyone else has anything new to bring to the table I'd love to see it. Otherwise were done here.
I have the DOCUMENT YOU QUOTED IN YOUR FIRST POST saying you can do it! Like I said before, if you are going to treat it as a WYSIWYG argument then that document provides you the support right there for using WYSIWYG. If you can't accept that, then the problem is with you and not with the document they wrote.
I don't care what you think I "imply". Stick to what I actually said.
Oh, I have. I am referring to what you claim as what you said, and what you are actually providing for as an argument as your actions. You are claiming one thing, but arguing another. You claim to follow FAQs, but are arguing for ignoring one.
Lance845 wrote:Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
Considering the fact that being able "older models" can have nothing to do with a datasheet's age, I honestly don't know how one could actually consider the direction in it as anything but addressing a WYSIWYG concern. Your own attempt to explain what they meant by it did not correlate with what they have actually stated.
Maybe you should try stating what you feel that entire Q&A was actually addressing, while considering the specific example of the Dreadnought's Weapon Options. So far, you've been arguing more for ignoring it than actually addressing it.
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.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
Why do you think they put it in the document? Honest question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 17:58:16
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:03:46
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
Correct, you took out one example of what they were saying to focus on a different example, in order to prove the omitted example isn't an example somehow. It's like if I took out the part about characters on bikes, and edited it to only mention dreadnoughts and vehicles, then came to the conclusion that characters on bikes can't legally be used at all.
The "actual point" of the sentence is both examples.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:05:37
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
Correct, you took out one example of what they were saying to focus on a different example, in order to prove the omitted example isn't an example somehow. It's like if I took out the part about characters on bikes, and edited it to only mention dreadnoughts and vehicles, then came to the conclusion that characters on bikes can't legally be used at all.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says. It's not options a model can take. It's options missing from the codex that are available in the index. I.E. any choice a player has that has been changed by edit or omission.
They have decided that the word options ONLY means wargear. I am pointing out that they are wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:09:48
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:10:51
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says. It's not options a model can take. It's options missing from the codex that are available in the index. I.E. any choice a player has that has been changed by edit or omission.
They have decided that the word options ONLY means wargear. I am pointing out that they are wrong.
So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:13:09
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.
So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.
No.
They think that the word Model means "The model with it's specific wargear options modeled onto it." Which requires that the game has to have some kind of rule requiring players to acurately model the wargear in order to use those options. In the big example of the thread a dread with twin autocannons. Because the greyknight codex and space marine codex have a dreadnought datasheet that does not have twin autocannons as a option they argue that the most recent datasheet for a model with those bits on it is the index datasheet.
When we pointed out that if that was the case then players could use any option they want from the index, including unnerfed conscripts who have the option to be taken as a 50 man unit instead of just 30 in the codex.
Their response was that unit size is not a "option" because CLEARLY "Option" means wargear options and not options in the general sense.
By pointing out that bikes are not wargear, and yet a option for a character in the index in the form of an entirely different datasheet I was proving that their interpretation of options was nonsense. Thus thier interpretation of Model is equally nonsense. Further backed by WYSIWYG not being a rule anywhere.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:21:30
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.
Your argument is nonsensical here, not the conequences of how I'm reading it (you haven't demonstrated that codex datasheets being nonsense with my interpretation). I'm reading model as it relates to the examples they have. It seems perfectly simple from it, and most people understand what they're saying. I can't help it if you're going to act like what they're saying is suddenly leading to dogs and cats living together - I'm going by their statements and their examples. If you have an interpretation that does not incorporate their example (which you do for the autogun dread), then it is your interpretation that has the problem as you are not accomodating what they say you can do.
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/26 18:24:21
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?
As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.
Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.
