|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Jun 22, 2018 2:13:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 22, 2018 2:13:24 GMT
He gets paid by the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 22, 2018 4:39:46 GMT
I could refute every of nightbringer's points in detail, but that would be without use, because his is a game of attrition, not of argument. So, I'll suffice with again noticing that nightbringer ( nomen est omen) in yet another long-winded post still has not answered the simple question: Since you yourself admit that the application of your reasoning in the MPP special rule shows “some serious lack of common sense and a heavy effort in rules-lawyering”, then why should that not be the case of PF? Just as I can (and have) refuted your points in great detail. As for the battle of attrition... it's the only battle that can be fought at this point. I can recognize that the debate has become rather cyclical. All the major points have been made and argued over and over again. Neither side has been convinced. We both pretty much have the same opinion in regards to the other's points. And don't complain that the post was long. Your post was extremely long, so I was replied in kind. I already discussed the MMP rule (just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean that it wasn't answered), however in short: - it does nothing to prove or disprove RAW in terms of PF, the existence of one poorly worded rule has no bearing on another independent rule
- although awkwardly written, I wouldn't interpret the rule as you have (the term "always" in this case refers having the opportunity to re-roll the dangerous terrain test no matter what type of terrain/spell/etc caused it; NOT re-rolling the test endlessly until it is passed)
- even if your interpretation was correct (because the writers of the rule worded it poorly) I would use RAI to clarify it instantly (because no rule would have you roll dice until you eventually pass... if that was the intention, it would state that the model passes dangerous terrain tests automatically)
|
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 22, 2018 4:41:10 GMT
This reads like the good old day. let's try and beat 20+ pages (which is how long predatory fighter threads used to go) A noble goal but I fear that we shall fall short. It would seem that the thread is beginning to lose steam. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 22, 2018 4:42:33 GMT
He gets paid by the word. If only! I've had my words misconstrued so many times that I have to at least attempt to cover all my bases. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 22, 2018 5:17:54 GMT
I already discussed the MMP rule (just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean that it wasn't answered), however in short: - it does nothing to prove or disprove RAW in terms of PF, the existence of one poorly worded rule has no bearing on another independent rule
- although awkwardly written, I wouldn't interpret the rule as you have (the term "always" in this case refers having the opportunity to re-roll the dangerous terrain test no matter what type of terrain/spell/etc caused it; NOT re-rolling the test endlessly until it is passed)
- even if your interpretation was correct (because the writers of the rule worded it poorly) I would use RAI to clarify it instantly (because no rule would have you roll dice until you eventually pass... if that was the intention, it would state that the model passes dangerous terrain tests automatically)
One of the main problems in this thread, is that you are prone to give answers, but not answer the question. If the question is "What is the time" and you reply "Blue", you have given an answer, but you have not answered the question. Your first answer boiled down to: "I do not know," and your latest answer, appelaing to RAI, boils down to: "Because I do not think so." As I have pointed out, the MPP is not just an isolated case – there are hundreds of rules like it. And in all these cases, there is no need to appeal to RAI, if you follow RAW, in casu: “ Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise.“ The MPP does state specifically that the basic rule does not apply, therefore it does. The PF does not state specifically that the basic rule does not apply, therefore it does. This reads like the good old day. let's try and beat 20+ pages (which is how long predatory fighter threads used to go) I have to disappoint you. It is funny that you wrote this at the very moment when nightbringer's RAW case had collapsed, and he is forced to appeal to RAI. The thread was not always enjoyable, but it has the benefit of proving beyond reasonable doubt that there is no RAW argument that allows the second rank to benefit from the PF rule. As I said in my very first post here: Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. That is the problem with RAI arguments: neither side can back it up. As the attempt for an RAW argument is dead in the water, and there is no point in arguing RAI, my work is done here. If nightbringer wants to have the last word, that is fine: it does not change the result, and he deserves a consolation price. |
|
|
|
Post by sedge on Jun 22, 2018 5:33:10 GMT
This reads like the good old day. let's try and beat 20+ pages (which is how long predatory fighter threads used to go) A noble goal but I fear that we shall fall short. It would seem that the thread is beginning to lose steam. Time will tell. It's time to open a third front - I contend that predatory fighter only applies to models in the second rank  |
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 22, 2018 5:37:20 GMT
I already discussed the MMP rule (just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean that it wasn't answered), however in short: - it does nothing to prove or disprove RAW in terms of PF, the existence of one poorly worded rule has no bearing on another independent rule
- although awkwardly written, I wouldn't interpret the rule as you have (the term "always" in this case refers having the opportunity to re-roll the dangerous terrain test no matter what type of terrain/spell/etc caused it; NOT re-rolling the test endlessly until it is passed)
- even if your interpretation was correct (because the writers of the rule worded it poorly) I would use RAI to clarify it instantly (because no rule would have you roll dice until you eventually pass... if that was the intention, it would state that the model passes dangerous terrain tests automatically)
One of the main problems in this thread, is that you are prone to give answers, but not answering the question. If the question is "What is the time" and you reply "Blue", you have given an answer, but not answered the question. Your first answer boiled down to: "I do not know," and your latest answer, appelaing to RAI, boils down to: "Because I do not think so." As I have pointed out, the MPP is not just an isolated case – there are hundreds of rules like it. And in all these cases, there is no need to appeal to RAI, if you follow RAW, in casu: “ Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise.“ The MPP does state specifically that the basic rule does not apply, therefore it does. The PF does not state specifically that the basic rule does not apply, therefore it does. This reads like the good old day. let's try and beat 20+ pages (which is how long predatory fighter threads used to go) I have to disappont you. It is funny that you wrote this at the very moment when nightbringer's RAW case had collapsed, and he is forced to appeal to RAI. The thread was not always enjoyable, but it has the benefit of proving beyond reasonable doubt that there is no RAW argument that allows the second rank to benefit from the PF rule. As I said in my very first post here: Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. . That is the problem with RAI arguments: neither side can back it up. As the attempt for an RAW argument is dead in the water, and there is no point in arguing RAI, my work is done here. If nightbringer wants to have the last word, that is fine: it does not change the result, and he deserves a consolation price. My RAW case is not dead, you never disproved it. Just because you state something does not mean that it is true. The only thing you proved was your lack of understanding. As for not answering the question, I did. You just didn't have the capacity to comprehend it. My first answer to the MPP argument was not "I don't know" but rather that it was not relevant to the PF debate, one does not effect the other. The last answer was that I simply have more tools at my disposal. Either way, no point in beating a dead horse. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 25, 2018 8:55:53 GMT
FYI it is relevant to the PF debate, because if you use your reasoning for allowing PF attacks from the second rank it has ramifications on many other rules which you (most people) would regard as ridiculous if played that way. That is the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 25, 2018 14:49:29 GMT
FYI it is relevant to the PF debate, because if you use your reasoning for allowing PF attacks from the second rank it has ramifications on many other rules which you (most people) would regard as ridiculous if played that way. That is the point. I would 100% agree that it matters in regards to RAI, but RAW is a different story. Rules as written is literally rules as written. It doesn't matter if it causes problems down the line. All that matters is the specific wording of the specific rules in question. To be honest it is one of the reasons why I don't like an over-reliance on RAW. I always use a combination of RAW, RAI and commonsense. However this debate has revolved around RAW. |
|
|
|
Post by Exalted. on Jul 4, 2018 2:48:20 GMT
People and their rules.... You know the 1" rule is just units apart. Not to force people to nick pick 1/8" of an in. like many(pointlessly) do. Can never get everyone happy. I just want to play games.
|
|
