HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Corsair Tactics

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16
AuthorMessage
Cheesy101
Slave
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-04-07

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:11

Oops, hadn't realized quite how old the last post was! Ah well, Frankenthread Ho!

Thanks for the quick replies! I'm pretty confident the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" exempts IC's from the debuff, or at least that's how I'm going to play it. I think it would take a pretty determined rules lawyer to argue otherwise on the table. This definitely makes the unit more viable, which is great because I am really looking forward to converting them!

How are people running them nowadays, what with the grenade nerfs? I'm guessing barebones with jumppack and a melta bomb? Is it viable to run them with venom blades/power weapons?

My local gaming club is University run, so the meta is pretty relaxed/fluffy as there isn't really a tournament scene locally. Normally any really cheesy lists get ostracized pretty quickly (unless someone asks for it), so weird, fluffy, less optimized lists are the norm. I was planning on running a skirmishing melee-ish raiding band, with some scat bikes, some combat bikes, malevolents and probably jetpack reavers. And hornets. Just because its fluffy doesn't mean it has to be a walkover.... Razz
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1305
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:24

Your totally wrong. Nothing about the IC rules allow you to preclude the ic from that debuff. Having said that: it's almost completely and totally irrelevant. The unit is fearless and the void dreamer does not have access to any powers that care about leadership. The only cases where that would matter is psychic shriek, mirror of minds, and mind war. Cast on the squad.and if you think it's rules lawyering to demand that you use the proper leadership value in that specific scenario I'm going to concede on the spot and walk away since your not the sort of person I want to play with.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:33

While a bit more direct than I would have put it myself, I'm in agreement with amorrowlyday here. Since the unit is fearless, there are very few reasons where the leadership debuff on the void dreamer will matter, but in the few instances that it WOULD matter, I'd feel like you were cheating me if you used the higher leadership.

All previous precedent points towards the debuff effecting the void dreamer.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2968
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:34

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not so sure about this. Also, while ICs count as being a part of the unit they join, they're still a unit in and of themselves as well. While they are a part of the unit "for all rules purposes", that doesn't mean they cease to be a unit themselves, as evidenced by the FAQs and rules that tell us killing an IC still counts as "killing a unit" even if it is attached to another unit that is not also killed.

I think the 'killing a unit' aspect is a poor example for two reasons. Firstly, because it seems like an exception rather than a rule. Probably because it would be a bit strange if ICs became less valuable target whilst leading units. Razz

Second, because it had to be ruled and faqd in the first place. If ICs were separate units even when attached to other units, then there'd be no need for them to provide an exception in the case of Kill Points.

Another issue is that, by this logic, I could choose to shoot directly at an IC (since he'd still count as his own unit), rather than needing to shoot at his unit to get to him.

Also, wouldn't this mean that ICs would be hit twice by blast and flamer weapons - once as their own unit and then again as part of the unit they're attached to?

In terms of rules, there's this:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes"

Which would seem to indicate that he needs a specific exception to count as his own unit for anything (such as for kill points).

But there's also this:

"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."

Surely this would only be necessary if an IC ceased to count as his own unit whilst attached to another unit?


@Cheesy101 wrote:

How are people running them nowadays, what with the grenade nerfs? I'm guessing barebones with jumppack and a melta bomb? Is it viable to run them with venom blades/power weapons? 

I haven't played in a while, but I used to run 5 of them with Jet Packs and 2 Melta Bombs and use them as a bodyguard for my Jet Pack Prince.

Ideally, I'd have them be part of a Sky Burners Coterie - so that they could deep strike with relative precision. They'd generally drop somewhere in the enemy's back lines - ideally both near an enemy unit and also near cover (without making the deep strike too risky). The aim is to open up with their pistols at the enemy and then use their Reckless Abandon move and Jet Pack move to get behind cover. On the following turn, they can jump out and either try for an assault or else shoot again.

I chose melta bombs because (combined with the Prince's S5 Rending Void Sabre) it gave them a decent chance against vehicles, should the opportunity arise, and most other combat needs could be handled by the Prince plus weight of attacks. Also, Melta Bombs are cheap.

To be honest, they're probably not the best choice for a Price escort - mainly because 6" movement is a pain for a melee unit. I just liked the models I made for them, which went well with my Prince model.

With regard to the grenade nerfs, are those official now? Either way, I'd probably still use Melta Bombs, though I might go down to just one for the squad depending on how tight points were.

I imagine it's viable to run them with other weapons - especially if you have a Void Dreamer to speed them up. I just preferred the cheapness and versatility offered by Melta Bombs.

@Cheesy101 wrote:
My local gaming club is University run, so the meta is pretty relaxed/fluffy as there isn't really a tournament scene locally. Normally any really cheesy lists get ostracized pretty quickly (unless someone asks for it), so weird, fluffy, less optimized lists are the norm. I was planning on running a skirmishing melee-ish raiding band, with some scat bikes, some combat bikes, malevolents and probably jetpack reavers. And hornets. Just because its fluffy doesn't mean it has to be a walkover.... Razz    
Back to top Go down
Cheesy101
Slave
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-04-07

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:39

@amorrowlyday

Fair enough, having had a closer look at the perils table there aren't any results that require leadership tests. That was the only scenario where I could see it regularly coming in to play.

Also, while I appreciate the reply and clarification, I don't think anything in my post warranted a scathing attack on my character. If so then I apologize, but as I mentioned I'm not a tournament player. Outside those circles everyone plays the rules as they interpret them until they are proven otherwise. I've not seen anything yet that proves the rules should be played one way over the other. Feel free to prove me wrong with a constructive counter argument.
Back to top Go down
Cheesy101
Slave
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-04-07

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 19:48

@The Shredder

That's pretty much what I was thinking re. the IC ruling- thanks for putting it in a nicely worded argument!

Sadly the draft FAQ's are no longer drafts, so there's very little point taking multiple grenades nowadays. I was thinking of taking them with a void dreamer for fun psychic shenanigans. The prince will go with the biker felarchs (if i decide to stump up the points). Will have to experiment!
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 20:00

@Cheesy101 wrote:
I don't think anything in my post warranted a scathing attack on my character.

He wasn't attacking your character. He simply said if you believe X despite strong evidence in the larger warhammer community to the contrary, you are not the type of person I want to play with. That's a choice, not an attack on your character. You also get to choose whether or not to even fit that category. I agree that it was a bit direct. I'd encourage you do delve further into the rules, maybe asking someplace like dakka(HAHAHAHAHA), to see what the public consensus is. Seriously, dakka can help find public consensus. It will probably just be a 20 page argument.

To be fair, both amorrowlyday and myself are pretty up-to-date on the national 40k scene, myself having played in recent large events like adepticon, while the shredder has admitted he hasn't really been playing 40k in a long time. The shredder only recently returned from taking like a year off from 40k.

So, while we may or may not all be equally capable of understanding the text of the rulebook, it is likely that amorrowlyday and myself are a bit more versed in what the public consensus is on things like this, from a national level.(referring to north america)

@The Shredder wrote:
@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not so sure about this. Also, while ICs count as being a part of the unit they join, they're still a unit in and of themselves as well. While they are a part of the unit "for all rules purposes", that doesn't mean they cease to be a unit themselves, as evidenced by the FAQs and rules that tell us killing an IC still counts as "killing a unit" even if it is attached to another unit that is not also killed.

I think the 'killing a unit' aspect is a poor example for two reasons. Firstly, because it seems like an exception rather than a rule. Probably because it would be a bit strange if ICs became less valuable target whilst leading units. Razz

Second, because it had to be ruled and faqd in the first place. If ICs were separate units even when attached to other units, then there'd be no need for them to provide an exception in the case of Kill Points.

Another issue is that, by this logic, I could choose to shoot directly at an IC (since he'd still count as his own unit), rather than needing to shoot at his unit to get to him.

Also, wouldn't this mean that ICs would be hit twice by blast and flamer weapons - once as their own unit and then again as part of the unit they're attached to?

In terms of rules, there's this:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes"

Which would seem to indicate that he needs a specific exception to count as his own unit for anything (such as for kill points).

But there's also this:

"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."

Surely this would only be necessary if an IC ceased to count as his own unit whilst attached to another unit?

That's a lot of arguing for something that has already been ruled on by GW and the warhammer community at large. It's not that your arguments wouldn't have a point if there were no other material outside of the rulebook. The problem is that we have FAQs in multiple scenarios that count ICs as their own seperate units for various purposes, even when attached to a unit. Scoring, for triggering soulburst, etc. And in all of those precedents set by GW FAQs and major tournament rulings, the debuff would apply to the void dreamer. Virtually the only time ICs count as part of the unit "for all rules purposes", has to do with movement, psychic powers, targetting, or melee combat. That's it. In every other circumstance, they end up counting as a unit.

Another example of a similar scenario has to do with ongoing effects. So if, for instance, an IC has jinx cast upon him and he subsequently joins a unit, the unit is not effected by jinx, despite that power effecting "the unit". Which means that, even within the rulebook itself, there are times when the character and unit are considered seperately. Here is the specific quote regarding ongoing effects:

Rulebook wrote:
if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.


DISCLAIMER: It should probably be noted that there are often major differences in how things are generally ruled between North America and the UK. In US culture, it's generally the letter of the law that matters, rather than the "spirit of the law" that the UK follows. So while the UK has codified into their culture the idea that the "spirit" of the law is the most important thing, the US instead strictly follows the letter of the law(who's interpretation is sometimes up for debate). Because of these small, but significant differences in our core culture, how we interpret rules is sometimes greatly effected, and so rulings will sometimes vary from country to country.
Back to top Go down
Cheesy101
Slave
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-04-07

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 20:25

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@Cheesy101 wrote:
I don't think anything in my post warranted a scathing attack on my character.

He wasn't attacking your character. He simply said if you believe X despite strong evidence in the larger warhammer community to the contrary, you are not the type of person I want to play with.

Fair enough, that was a bit of an over reaction. However, definitely not the welcome I expected to the forum. I'm new to the forum and so don't know anyone's level of knowledge- as such I'm willing to listen to any compelling argument (generally "you're wrong, I'm not going to play with you until you see things my way" isn't a compelling argument in my book). As I said I'm not a tournament player, and am not up to date on the general popular consensus on most rules gray areas.

In any case thanks for writing up the counter argument- from what you've said it definitely sounds like, RAW, you're correct. Obviously there can be a pretty big gulf between RAW and RAI, and as you mentioned most UK groups (that I know) tend to favor RAI. Even so, I'll make sure to check with my opponents if the situation arises.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2968
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 20:52

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

To be fair, both amorrowlyday and myself are pretty up-to-date on the national 40k scene, myself having played in recent large events like adepticon, while the shredder has admitted he hasn't really been playing 40k in a long time. The shredder only recently returned from taking like a year off from 40k.

So, while we may or may not all be equally capable of understanding the text of the rulebook, it is likely that amorrowlyday and myself are a bit more versed in what the public consensus is on things like this, from a national level.(referring to north america)

Yeah, that's a fair point.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's a lot of arguing for something that has already been ruled on by GW and the warhammer community at large.

If it's already been ruled on, could you maybe quote the relevant FAQ/errata? It might help clarify things.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
It's not that your arguments wouldn't have a point if there were no other material outside of the rulebook. The problem is that we have FAQs in multiple scenarios that count ICs as their own seperate units for various purposes, even when attached to a unit. Scoring, for triggering soulburst, etc. And in all of those precedents set by GW FAQs and major tournament rulings, the debuff would apply to the void dreamer. Virtually the only time ICs count as part of the unit "for all rules purposes", has to do with movement, psychic powers, targetting, or melee combat. That's it. In every other circumstance, they end up counting as a unit.

So, what exactly determines when an IC counts as part of a unit and when it counts as its own unit? You say that it counts as part of the unit for targeting purposes, but why? I mean, if this rule is ignores at other times, why not here as well?

I ask because, from what you've said so far, the ruling for when an IC counts as part of a unit and when it doesn't seem entirely arbitrary. Neutral

I'm not saying you're wrong about it, it just seems really weird to me - even by the standard of GW's rules. Razz

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Another example of a similar scenario has to do with ongoing effects. So if, for instance, an IC has jinx cast upon him and he subsequently joins a unit, the unit is not effected by jinx, despite that power effecting "the unit". Which means that, even within the rulebook itself, there are times when the character and unit are considered seperately. Here is the specific quote regarding ongoing effects:

Rulebook wrote:
if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.

As far as examples go, that one seems a bit of a stretch to be honest. It seems more akin to an argument of Models vs Units, if you see what I mean.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

DISCLAIMER: It should probably be noted that there are often major differences in how things are generally ruled between North America and the UK. In US culture, it's generally the letter of the law that matters, rather than the "spirit of the law" that the UK follows. So while the UK has codified into their culture the idea that the "spirit" of the law is the most important thing, the US instead strictly follows the letter of the law(who's interpretation is sometimes up for debate). Because of these small, but significant differences in our core culture, how we interpret rules is sometimes greatly effected, and so rulings will sometimes vary from country to country.

See, despite living in the UK, I actually tend to go with the letter of the rules. That's what baffled me about this particular ruling - because it seemed to directly contradict the letter of the IC rules.

But obviously I was just going by the letter of rulebook, not the faqs and other rulings.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 21:55

@The Shredder wrote:

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
It's not that your arguments wouldn't have a point if there were no other material outside of the rulebook. The problem is that we have FAQs in multiple scenarios that count ICs as their own seperate units for various purposes, even when attached to a unit. Scoring, for triggering soulburst, etc. And in all of those precedents set by GW FAQs and major tournament rulings, the debuff would apply to the void dreamer. Virtually the only time ICs count as part of the unit "for all rules purposes", has to do with movement, psychic powers, targetting, or melee combat. That's it. In every other circumstance, they end up counting as a unit.

So, what exactly determines when an IC counts as part of a unit and when it counts as its own unit?

Basically, when an IC joins a unit, it counts as part of that unit for all BASIC unit interactions. When it comes to scoring, anything to do with dying, or more advanced rules, the tendency is to say that they still count as a unit in and of themselves. I'm not going to claim that no TO anywhere would rule your way, but it would likely be a rarity. For one thing, nothing in the malevolents' rule stops the rule from effecting THEMSELVES. So that's the first argument you'd need to overcome. Till you can do that, the rest of it doesn't matter anyhow.

Here is the logic that makes it effect themselves:

1. It says it effects ALL eldar, corsairs, or dark eldar. It does NOT use the word "OTHER" as a prefix.
2. It says it effects ALL CWE/Corsairs/DE within X inches of their location. Ok, we have a starting point.

So, are they within X inches of that location? The answer is always yes, because the location is generated on top of their own location.
So, are they corsairs? Yes.

So everything we have indicates that they would be effected by it, with nothing to indicate that they wouldn't. Burden of proof, at that point, is on anyone making a claim otherwise.

@The Shredder wrote:
@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Another example of a similar scenario has to do with ongoing effects. So if, for instance, an IC has jinx cast upon him and he subsequently joins a unit, the unit is not effected by jinx, despite that power effecting "the unit". Which means that, even within the rulebook itself, there are times when the character and unit are considered seperately. Here is the specific quote regarding ongoing effects:

Rulebook wrote:
if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.

As far as examples go, that one seems a bit of a stretch to be honest. It seems more akin to an argument of Models vs Units, if you see what I mean.

I don't see what you mean. I don't know what part of it you think is a stretch. This example is essentially copy/pasted directly from the rulebook regarding ongoing effects, so it's the actual rule, requiring ZERO interpretation, which is the complete opposite of a "Stretch". Unless you're referring to how it relates to this specific scenario, in which all precedent is going to be "a stretch", because if we had a specific ruling on this specific scenario without having to refer to precedent, we wouldn't be having any sort of debate at all. Wink
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2968
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 22:44

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Basically, when an IC joins a unit, it counts as part of that unit for all BASIC unit interactions.

But that's not what the rule says - it says for "for all rules purposes". This would indicate that it automatically includes *every* scenario which does not have a specific exception spelled out elsewhere in the rules.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
For one thing, nothing in the malevolents' rule stops the rule from effecting THEMSELVES. So that's the first argument you'd need to overcome. Till you can do that, the rest of it doesn't matter anyhow.

Here is the logic that makes it effect themselves:

1. It says it effects ALL eldar, corsairs, or dark eldar. It does NOT use the word "OTHER" as a prefix.
2. It says it effects ALL CWE/Corsairs/DE within X inches of their location. Ok, we have a starting point.

So, are they within X inches of that location? The answer is always yes, because the location is generated on top of their own location.
So, are they corsairs? Yes.

So everything we have indicates that they would be effected by it, with nothing to indicate that they wouldn't. Burden of proof, at that point, is on anyone making a claim otherwise.

I would contest the bolded part. As I said initially, the rules seem to indicate that units and models do not count as being within X" of themselves for the purposes of auras and such.

The closest examples I've found so far are the Telekinetic Dome and Shrouding psychic powers:

"Telekine Dome is a blessing that targets the Psyker. Whilst the power is in effect, the Psyker, and all friendly models within 12" of the Psyker, have a 5+ invulnerable save against any shooting attack."

"Shrouding is a blessing that targets the Psyker. Whilst this power is in effect, the Psyker,
and all friendly models within 6" of the Psyker
, have the Shrouded special rule."

If a model always counts as being within range of itself, surely there would be no need to specifically say that these powers affect the psyker as well?

I appreciate that these are referring to models, not units, but this is still evidence that auras do not count the initiating model(s) as being within their range.

Moving onto auras that affect units, there's the Cronos' Spirit Probe:

"The model, and all friendly units with both the Dark Eldar Faction and the Feel No Pain special rule within 6" of one of more models with a spirit probe, receive a + 1 bonus to their Feel No Pain. This is cumulative with any other modifiers to Feel No Pain, but cannot improve their Feel No Pain beyond 4+."

And also the Helm of Spite:

The bearer of the Helm of Spite, and all friendly units with the Dark Eldar Faction within 12" of the bearer, have the Adamantium Will special rule. In addition, enemy Psykers that are within 12" of the bearer suffer Perils of the Warp when they roll any double when making any Psychic test.

As with the powers above, these item specifically state that they affect the bearer *and* all units within the respective range.

Note also that, in all of these examples, the originating model/unit is listed completely separately from the units affected by the actual aura (as opposed to saying something like 'all units within 6", including the bearer'). No, in all cases the originating model has to be specifically designated as being affected in addition to the models included in the radius of the actual aura.

In the absence of a direct ruling, the evidence points overwhelmingly to auras not counting the originating unit/model as being within their range.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I don't see what you mean. I don't know what part of it you think is a stretch. This example is essentially copy/pasted directly from the rulebook regarding ongoing effects, so it's the actual rule, requiring ZERO interpretation, which is the complete opposite of a "Stretch". Unless you're referring to how it relates to this specific scenario

I was indeed referring to how this ruling related to the scenario we were discussing.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
in which all precedent is going to be "a stretch", because if we had a specific ruling on this specific scenario without having to refer to precedent, we wouldn't be having any sort of debate at all. Wink

Granted, but your previous post gave the impression that there had been a definitive ruling on this. Did I misunderstand you?
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Fri Apr 07 2017, 23:09

@The Shredder wrote:

If a model always counts as being within range of itself, surely there would be no need to specifically say that these powers affect the psyker as well?

I appreciate that these are referring to models, not units, but this is still evidence that auras do not count the initiating model(s) as being within their range.

All of your arguments hinge on this being true. It's not, and therefore none of your arguments have any foundation. GW using redundancy in it's wording doesn't make auras not effect the wielder of the aura in cases where it doesn't specify. They are within the area of effect, end of story. Nothing indicates that they wouldn't be within the area of effect. As the saying goes, "Wherever you go, there you are." What you're arguing now is a stretch, that a model isn't considered to be within 12" of it's own location. It doesn't matter if it doesn't use the typical GW wording. That may be because it is from a book that wasn't written by GW, but instead written by forgeworld, who is known to be even more loose with their wording than GW is.


@The Shredder wrote:
@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
in which all precedent is going to be "a stretch", because if we had a specific ruling on this specific scenario without having to refer to precedent, we wouldn't be having any sort of debate at all. Wink

Granted, but your previous post gave the impression that there had been a definitive ruling on this. Did I misunderstand you?

There have been definitive rulings on precedents.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2968
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Sat Apr 08 2017, 09:58

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

All of your arguments hinge on this being true. It's not

Forgive me, but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to actually back up this point.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
GW using redundancy in it's wording

Except that you are making the assumption that it is redundancy, with no actual evidence to back up that assertion.

Also, you are completely ignoring the actual phrasing - note that the originating model is always being listed as being affected separately from those within his aura.

If what you said was true, you would expect the aura to say "all models within 6", including the bearer," or "all models within 6" (including the bearer)". Instead, we have "The bearer and all models within 6" of him." This indicates that the bearer does not count as being within 6" of himself.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They are within the area of effect, end of story.

Citation needed.

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
As the saying goes, "Wherever you go, there you are."

But this is a game. An abstraction. Not reality.

Need I remind you that people who stop to shoot and then stop again to fight typically don't end up moving further than whose who use that time to run?

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
What you're arguing now is a stretch, that a model isn't considered to be within 12" of it's own location.

I find it hilarious that you call my argument a stretch, given that yours is currently "It's this way because I say it is! Your evidence doesn't count because it proves I'm wrong."

All the evidence points to models not counting as being within X" of themselves for the purposes of these (and similar) effects.

But you have clearly already made up your mind and have no interest in hearing evidence that contradicts your view. Nor, it seems, providing any evidence to actually support the point you're so desperately arguing for.

I think we're about done here.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Sat Apr 08 2017, 20:13

@The Shredder wrote:
@BetrayTheWorld wrote:

All of your arguments hinge on this being true. It's not

Forgive me, but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to actually back up this point.

I have. We're told it effects ALL corsairs in the area of effect. The area of effect is defined. They are within it. It isn't some magical area. It's quite simple. Were it on a flat, paper surface, you could literally draw the roughly circular shape of the area, and they'd be within it. That's it. That's your evidence. They're corsairs and they're in the area of effect with nothing saying they're immune to the effect. The rule clearly effects them because the wording SAYS it effects them(since they are part of "all corsairs"), and DOESN'T say that they're immune to it.

So the burden of proof is upon anyone who is trying to claim otherwise. And some OTHER rules in OTHER books where they use redundancy in their own descriptions is not AT ALL enough to change the English language, or how it should be perceived in other writings by a completely different company.

So don't you dare sit there and try to speak to me as if I am the one not providing evidence. You're ignoring the very book that the unit in question is sourced from as evidence.

@The Shredder wrote:
I find it hilarious that you call my argument a stretch, given that yours is currently "It's this way because I say it is! Your evidence doesn't count because it proves I'm wrong."

It seems like you don't have the attention span to read what I have been saying, or you're intentionally trying to oversimplify the situation to try to make me look infantile. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through your rhetoric.

@The Shredder wrote:
All the evidence points to models not counting as being within X" of themselves for the purposes of these (and similar) effects.

You don't HAVE any evidence. You're pointing to other books, written by a different company, and just referring to how they worded it, which is with redundancy. It's with redundancy because EVERY SINGLE POSITIVE AURA THAT GW HAS MADE IN THE MODERN ERA IS WORDED THAT WAY. That means it's redundancy, because WE KNOW that is how they make auras. Even if they didn't say X, and everyone within 12" of X, we'd still have a positive aura effect X, because that is how auras work.

Different writers from a different company will word things differently. We STILL have to follow the tenants of the English language when reading the book this unit is sourced from unless we have a definitive 40k rule telling us otherwise. We don't. So the rule as written says they're effected by it. Period.

@The Shredder wrote:
I think we're about done here.

I sincerely hope so. Based on the tone of your last response, I don't see this conversation becoming any more civil than it is right now.
Back to top Go down
Srota
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 134
Join date : 2017-02-23
Location : Willow Grove, PA

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Mon Apr 10 2017, 13:18



Just gonna leave this juicy tidbit here...
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7214
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   Mon Apr 10 2017, 13:53

Indeed...

Thread locked

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Corsair Tactics   

Back to top Go down
 
Corsair Tactics
Back to top 
Page 16 of 16Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

AELDARI ALLIES

 :: Craftworld Eldar, Ynnari, Harlequins & Corsairs
-
Jump to: