Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]
Reply
Old 16 Jan 2010, 04:24   #21 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

No, the discussion is not over when you choose because you are not justifying anything.

On the matter of secrecy, if you keep the list from your opponent, then the rules just as strongly back telling them what's in the transports. You can't have one without the other unless you are once again picking and choosing what to play as a House Rule.

On the matter of ramming, you are making up the facts so far, not me. The burden of proof is on you, so if you don't want the topic closed, then obviously don't do anything that would cause it to be so. All you have to do is justify it.

Explain right here, on this topic, by the quoted RAW how the rules interaction allow the ramming to work according to you. Then, address what I have written, and then we can discuss it from there.

For starters, No, movement is not normal when it's not done in the shooting phase. The rules for those cases are outlined and the rules given within the exceptions.

So come on, get some actual FULL rules quotes in here to back your stance up. The mods won't lock a simple discussion.
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 05:17   #22 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,838
Send a message via AIM to Sidstyler Send a message via MSN to Sidstyler
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
Privy is "secretive". That's the way we like it. You don't see the army list till mid-way or after the game. The idea that you have to show what everything is and where it is is Tournament klkn.
Whatever, I wouldn't do that in any game unless I really trusted my opponent. I'd hate to go through the game and find out at the very end his list wasn't legal.

I also think that could be abused easily in game. If he doesn't have to tell you what's in his transports then it could be any squad he wanted it to be, really, and whenever he wanted it. Are those veterans in that chimera or a platoon command squad with flamers? Depends, if you have a horde of dudes next to it they're flamers, and if you have tanks next to it they're meltavets!
__________________

Warhams is serious business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard
Knowing the rules is not WAAC. Bringing tough lists is not WAAC. Acting within the scope of the rules is not WAAC.
Sidstyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 08:07   #23 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Eastern Fringe
Posts: 1,685
Send a message via AIM to Colonel Marksman
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
No, the discussion is not over when you choose because you are not justifying anything.

On the matter of secrecy, if you keep the list from your opponent, then the rules just as strongly back telling them what's in the transports. You can't have one without the other unless you are once again picking and choosing what to play as a House Rule.

On the matter of ramming, you are making up the facts so far, not me. The burden of proof is on you, so if you don't want the topic closed, then obviously don't do anything that would cause it to be so. All you have to do is justify it.

Explain right here, on this topic, by the quoted RAW how the rules interaction allow the ramming to work according to you. Then, address what I have written, and then we can discuss it from there.

For starters, No, movement is not normal when it's not done in the shooting phase. The rules for those cases are outlined and the rules given within the exceptions.

So come on, get some actual FULL rules quotes in here to back your stance up. The mods won't lock a simple discussion.
I give direct quotes to rules. I tell them as they are written. I use the rules to directly and obviously disprove what you have to say. You are stopping now and trying to stand back because you are incapable of quoting rules to support your side. You cannot defend your side of the argument while disproving anything that I have said.

Are you blind? I would have to re-post my post, exactly as written, for me to explain myself. I have been posting the exact same thing through and through, and you must change and adapt your notions to match them. Now you've just given up. You see the points I've made, and you're on your last desperate stand to try and hold some of your dignity together. What you are trying to do is see if I will make a flaw or state an exception so you can break through and attack something I said. That would have nothing to do with the argument at that point. Now you are just trying to attack me as a person.

If there's anything I've learned from the art of debate, its that you cannot use your status or experience as a reference, and you cannot use your debater's misstep on a misquote or flawed example as a reference either. The point still stands.


I have quoted you. I have nullified your points and made you to question them and try something else. And then I have explained my points enough through and through by examples. If you cannot understand them, then you are ignoring them, proving yourself to be ignorant by asking me to retype everything that I have said and quoted. Now your argument is broken down to the point you can't even support your own argument anymore. I'll prove that statement:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
No, the discussion is not over when you choose because you are not justifying anything.
This is my thread, and it is about how to work with or against an army list I posted, and the strategy/tactics employed with it. I have chosen the topic. Whether or not I am justifying anything is your matter of opinion without a shred of proof. It is an empty accusation at nothing without any factual support or data. If a moderator wishes to break this discussion off into a new topic about Star Engine Ramming, then he may do so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
For starters, No, movement is not normal when it's not done in the shooting phase. The rules for those cases are outlined and the rules given within the exceptions.
The point that a movement done in a shooting phase is not classed as a "normal movement" is your own personal opinion. It is personal opinion because there is no factual data to support it. If the rules for those cases are outlined and the rules that have the exceptions go with them, then please, list your examples as I have done countless times. You must back up your own statements before asking me to re-state my own statements and back them up.

You cannot use a post-count number or karma count as a means of expecting that you are on the correct side. You are under the assumption that because you have been on TO for a longer period of time that regardless of what you say, it is going to be more correct simply because you believe you have more experience. Don't try, I know you were thinking about it.


What you are doing now is "calling back". I have made the point, you have looped around, and now unable to say anything more, are calling back and making statements about my claims. This is a rather Asian cultural thing to do, btw.
This is a drastic turn from the "down talk", the bully method of debate. Its when you tried using your position as a more veteran member as a method of talking down to me to try and gain dominance. Now that I have not submitted to that or call out any insults like a child, you're getting defensive because you have run out of methods. (Note, that type of debate method works better when you have a group of supporting 3rd parties.)

At this point, you won't be willing to admit that you are wrong anyway. You have a determination to remain correct in your mind. This type of thought has clouded your ability to carefully consider the points that I've made (ever, even the last one). The reason being is being is because you have taken comments so personally that you cannot accept them.



You find it so hard to believe that you could be wrong by asking me to re-state and give more proof on what I have stated because a little bit of proof (which is the only thing there really) is not enough. This is because you have doubts about your own POV.



I don't have anything against you, Ender. You have some good talents and smarts and are a very determined person. I do not want to get off on the wrong footing because of a grudge. But know this now: I do not make enemies, and when someone becomes my enemy, I will do everything I can to change that relationship. I suggest we end this quarrel in a PM with a fresh start. You can either accept that invitation or continue going down a path I am not going to follow.


----------------



As for secrecy style of play, I wrote a topic on how to do this.
__________________
If the Eldar see battle as a symphony,
Then the Elati have mastered a solo piece,
Of every instrument.


Games in the Past Month:
Tau: W-1, T-0, L-1
Witch H: W-0, T-0, L-0
Eldar: W-2, T-0, L-1
Guard: W-0, T-0, L-0
Other: W-2, T-1, L-0
Colonel Marksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 10:05   #24 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 275
Send a message via Yahoo to TigStripe
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Interesting debate. I'd like to know your position on the "interpretation" that movement during the Movement phase is "normal" movement, be it jetbike, footslogging, slow and purposeful, etc., whereas the Shooting phase is for "running" and other additional movements such as Star Engines, and the Assault phase is for "assault moves" and other additional movement such as warp engines and jet packs.

In my opinion, things are worded pretty obviously that "normal" movement is specifically for the Movement phase, whereas everything else would be considered special exceptions that specifically take place in different phases.
__________________
It's a world of Love, it's a world of Kids,
It's a world of FIRE, and a world of Dys,
It's a world of Death, and a world of Fear,
It's a Small World After All.
TigStripe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 17:31   #25 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigStripe
Interesting debate. I'd like to know your position on the "interpretation" that movement during the Movement phase is "normal" movement, be it jetbike, footslogging, slow and purposeful, etc., whereas the Shooting phase is for "running" and other additional movements such as Star Engines, and the Assault phase is for "assault moves" and other additional movement such as warp engines and jet packs.

In my opinion, things are worded pretty obviously that "normal" movement is specifically for the Movement phase, whereas everything else would be considered special exceptions that specifically take place in different phases.
Exactly my point. I'd like to see where he claims this.
[hr]

No Marksman, it doesn't work that way. It is entirely on-topic to talk about a tactic involved in the list. Regardless of status as the creator, you have made a topic that can be explored without regard for your opinion on it or not.
Technically, I stepped out of turn by proving my side when it was you who had the original burden of proof to explain your view. In fact, both links you linked to in your other comment support that you cannot star engine ram.

Since I'm apparently not the only person who has missed your RAW quotes and reasoning, expand on them.
I've already quoted at least one place where you previous quote was only partially finished, not surprisingly it stopped at a point that would help you out the most. Re-quote the rules in their entirety if you need to, this discussion is just warming up.

And drop the "oh poor me" act, every poster is equal on this forum regardless of post or karma count. It is very obvious that you don't know my (posting) habits with such absurd comments as

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
If there's anything I've learned from the art of debate, its that you cannot use your status or experience as a reference, and you cannot use your debater's misstep on a misquote or flawed example as a reference either. The point still stands.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
You cannot use a post-count number or karma count as a means of expecting that you are on the correct side. You are under the assumption that because you have been on TO for a longer period of time that regardless of what you say, it is going to be more correct simply because you believe you have more experience. Don't try, I know you were thinking about it.
Fact is, when I make a mistake I own up to it as immediately as possible. Your view of "dignity" is flawed tbh, I do not see it as beneath me to be proven wrong. Hell, Masked Thespian has proven me incorrect multiple times and I have always acknowledged that when it happens. In fact, just the other day I made a mistake and admitted up to it a fairly new member (compared to ole elitist me ). You can see where I apologized to Zack and, indeed, made a statement showing how silly your accusation really is here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
I have nullified your points and made you to question them and try something else.
Lol, What? When do you presume to have done this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
This is my thread, and it is about how to work with or against an army list I posted, and the strategy/tactics employed with it. I have chosen the topic. Whether or not I am justifying anything is your matter of opinion without a shred of proof. It is an empty accusation at nothing without any factual support or data. If a moderator wishes to break this discussion off into a new topic about Star Engine Ramming, then he may do so.
As I made clear earlier, the discussion will go on. Unless you prompt it from a mod, we are entirely on topic whether you would like us to be otherwise. Your statement above does nothing to my side of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
The point that a movement done in a shooting phase is not classed as a "normal movement" is your own personal opinion. It is personal opinion because there is no factual data to support it. If the rules for those cases are outlined and the rules that have the exceptions go with them, then please, list your examples as I have done countless times. You must back up your own statements before asking me to re-state my own statements and back them up.
Maybe it's that whole section of the rule book that deals with the "Movement Phase" that I take as normal movement and the exceptions to said movement are outlined in their sections. :
You have burden of proof right now, not me, because you are attempting to explain how a movement outside of the natural order of things works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
What you are doing now is "calling back". I have made the point, you have looped around, and now unable to say anything more, are calling back and making statements about my claims. This is a rather Asian cultural thing to do, btw.
Really now, what has the Asian culture got to do with this? I've truthfully never even heard of the phrase or explanation as you put it. I'm not even sure if this is offensive, I wouldn't though since I'm both thick skinned and not Asian. ;D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
This is a drastic turn from the "down talk", the bully method of debate. Its when you tried using your position as a more veteran member as a method of talking down to me to try and gain dominance. Now that I have not submitted to that or call out any insults like a child, you're getting defensive because you have run out of methods. (Note, that type of debate method works better when you have a group of supporting 3rd parties.)
Actually, I am using my experience and knowledge to discuss this with you. I merely said that Tauonline is a great way to bulk up on either and that you'd be wise to draw what you can from it. Yoiu are inexperienced from what I have read of your work, but that assessment doesn't stem from any reputation on here, it comes from my own experiences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
At this point, you won't be willing to admit that you are wrong anyway. You have a determination to remain correct in your mind. This type of thought has clouded your ability to carefully consider the points that I've made (ever, even the last one). The reason being is being is because you have taken comments so personally that you cannot accept them.
Your projecting your values on me, that or deflecting the issue at hand at the minimum. You can ask a score of people who have proved me wrong if I admitted to it and they will agree that I have. If I didn't feel like that would be off-topic I would post links to every one of those times so far. However, your rant about me is precisely the sort of thing that mods will shut a topic down for, so I'd suggest we get back to the issue I want to discuss, that of the Star Engine Ramming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Marksman
I don't have anything against you, Ender. You have some good talents and smarts and are a very determined person. I do not want to get off on the wrong footing because of a grudge. But know this now: I do not make enemies, and when someone becomes my enemy, I will do everything I can to change that relationship. I suggest we end this quarrel in a PM with a fresh start. You can either accept that invitation or continue going down a path I am not going to follow.
Oh lay off the drama!
The reasons nobody makes internet threats anymore is because we've all come to realize that the "Internet tough guy" act doesn't hold water. Technically, threats like that are against TO policy, but again you display a lack of knowledge on my past history of such things. I don't care about them in 99.99% of the cases. Likely less than that most likely... :funny:
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 19:03   #26 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Eastern Fringe
Posts: 1,685
Send a message via AIM to Colonel Marksman
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

I see that you are not interested in taking care of this like an adult. You are still trying obtain a grasp to some level of dignity, over my own.


Ok. Prove that "normal movement" = "Movement Phase movement only". You can't. No rules exist that state that normal movement means the movement made in the Movement Phase. Its as simple as that. That connection doesn't exist and isn't acknowledged in the Rulebook. Until you can find a rule or statement in the Rulebook that says this, then anything you've said is simply your personal opinion.

Normal movement means that: normal movement. The Eldar Codex has specified in the Warp Spider's Jump Generator does not abide by normal movement; it has a specific list of how the move is done. It does not make the same distinction for the Star Engine.

If the Rulebook writers intended it to only mean the Movement Phase, they would have mentioned it when the Eldar test players at corporate mentioned, "Hey, the Star Engine ram..." It's not that complicated and is quite common.
__________________
If the Eldar see battle as a symphony,
Then the Elati have mastered a solo piece,
Of every instrument.


Games in the Past Month:
Tau: W-1, T-0, L-1
Witch H: W-0, T-0, L-0
Eldar: W-2, T-0, L-1
Guard: W-0, T-0, L-0
Other: W-2, T-1, L-0
Colonel Marksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 19:42   #27 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

It doesn't work like that Marksman. You have burden of proof at the moment to write down exactly why the tactic works. I don't have to justify my reasons why it doesn't until you provide your reasoning firstly. Try to do it with a little less ad hoc as well. I'm not interested in your dignity or my own, only the correct ruling (which is also something I've made clear in the past).

Just as a small gesture of faith that you would like to actually debate this though, I leave you with the completed rule that you tried to pass off incomplete. Emphasis mine, of course.

Page 68 of the rules actually says "When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally."

(I'd also suggest reading over Pg. 9's first paragraph where movement is obviously stated as a phase. The text reading that movement is relegated to a specific phase that comes before the other two for conveniences sake)

Page 11 also outlines what standard movement is for infantry and directs the reader to further sections depending on the unit type. Page 51 also states that everything moves like infantry, unless otherwise stated. The Vehicles section does not exclude their normal movement from happening in the Movement phase. In fact, Page 57 deals with vehicles and obviously normal movement occurs in the Movement phase with such phrases dealing with their movement being included in Roads and Pivoting.
Page 58 makes it clear that normal movement occurs in the Movement phase by directly indicating what can/can't shoot based on how far it moved then. Page 69 makes it clear that Skimmers follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the exceptions listed.
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 Jan 2010, 19:44   #28 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,838
Send a message via AIM to Sidstyler Send a message via MSN to Sidstyler
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Quote:
Ok. Prove that "normal movement" = "Movement Phase movement only". You can't. No rules exist that state that normal movement means the movement made in the Movement Phase. Its as simple as that. That connection doesn't exist and isn't acknowledged in the Rulebook. Until you can find a rule or statement in the Rulebook that says this, then anything you've said is simply your personal opinion.
This is why I really hate RAW in general, because thanks to GW's shit rules writing, the game is virtually unplayable. Want another good example? A debate that came up on YTTH a couple weeks back, very interesting...the Tyranids have some new rules regarding synapse control, some of them are apparently subject to Rage due to their instinctive behavior rules. Because of this, someone proposed a strategy for playing 'nids without synapse control, a way to play with 'nids in which you had full control over all your models and no need for synapse at all. How is this possible?

Turn the models around. Seriously. Rage states that you must always move as fast as possible towards the closest "visible" enemy. What is visible? Well without it really being defined we have to assume they mean within LOS. The rules for moving models state that they can be moved to face any direction in the movement phase, as their "facing" doesn't really matter for the purposes of shooting because they can be turned to face their targets. So the rules allow you to move all your 'nids backwards, ass-end facing the enemy, to bypass the effects of Rage, and then turn around after movement to face them again.

And you can't quote any rules to prevent this, either. It's legal, the rules as written allow it to be played that way. We have no defined arc of vision for infantry units, no defined "facing", the only rules on the subject state that they can, in fact, move backwards, and LOS is drawn from the models eyes.

But even the guy who discovered this "tactic" admitted it was a real dick thing to do, and that in casual play he wouldn't do it, saving it only for circumstances in which he really needed to win, like a tournament. Probably because if you pull this kinda shit on someone you're playing for fun, they're likely never going to play you a second time. And honestly I highly doubt they would allow this at any tournament, regardless of what the RAW says. It's clearly not how GW intended the rules to work, because it would mean the Rage USR is virtually pointless as any unit can just turn its back to the enemy and get its wits about them again. Not much of a real downside like it was meant to be, and especially gamebreaking when you consider an army just recently released is mass-effected by the Rage rule.

I'd ask how badly it is you need to win. If winning is so god-damned important then fine, use your star engines to ram all you ****ing want to if inflicting a strength 15 hit because of an oversight in the rules is really your game-winning strategy (who the hell relies on that as a "tactic" anyway, sounds stupid if you ask me, lmao...why not shoot with your vehicles, or use them to transport fire dragons and fry tanks the way everyone else does?). Good luck finding another opponent though, because I know I'll never play you again outside of a tournament, and I assume I wouldn't be the first one you tried that with.
__________________

Warhams is serious business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard
Knowing the rules is not WAAC. Bringing tough lists is not WAAC. Acting within the scope of the rules is not WAAC.
Sidstyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 Jan 2010, 18:20   #29 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Craftworld Yme-Loc.
Posts: 1,695
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

With a note with the list, they look great.. I myself play with a list that has few models and it looks difficult to get to grasps with.

scar.
__________________
scar face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 Jan 2010, 18:33   #30 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: 1850 "Swordstar" [Eldrad+ Prince *ick]

Sid, the RAW goes far deeper than his example, it's simple English in this case that he is ignoring. I can plainly ask when your stuff moves normally and I know what you'll say. The issue here is that you move the extra 12" as a skimmer does (all penalties/bonuses for doing so), but it never says you move normally, which is one of Tank Shocks qualifiers. Plus, the rule doesn't get around the paradox created if we believed Star Engines could somehow ram, since they are done before the Shooting phase as the last sentence on that page indicates. :

[hr]
As for the Tyranids, if this were true, it's not the only thing they'll likely errata. The Mawloch is causing issues apparently, and some people are already wanting to be able to ring opponent's units in Apoc (like Zaraknyel, Scabiethrax, Imperator Titans, etc.) and then come up under them to automatically destroy them.

Personally, I feel that a MC has no business being capable of such a thing, but obviously it's one of those issues they need to address. :P
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WAARGH Grumgutz vs. Flying Mech IG (1850, 3/7/10) in "Vengeance Rematch!" BigToof Battle Reports 24 17 Mar 2010 21:50
WAARGH Grumgutz vs. The Necron Scourge (1850, 2/11) in "Dead to Rights!" BigToof Battle Reports 22 21 Feb 2010 02:40
Which deploys last? "Word in Your Ear", "Grand Illusion", or "Macharian Cross" davidgr33n The Inquisition 4 27 Dec 2007 05:52
Which deploys last? "Word in Your Ear", "Grand Illusion", or "Macharian Cross" davidgr33n Imperial Guard 5 24 Dec 2007 20:38