Dreadknight with personal teleporter

[greatcrusade08]

awww, all that for nothing.

still it was nice to rgue with you all ;)

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Fast skimmers would be similarly disallowed because the rule book never explicitly says you can be a fast skimmer, it only speaks about being fast and being a skimmer.

 

I'm pretty sure the Vehicle section does explicitly cover that. :P

 

In a sense, but not in the sense Brother Ramses is claiming for his argument. The vehicle types are listed, and the skimmer rule talks about how fast skimmers can move 24", but there is no listing of "fast skimmer" as a vehicle type when the types are enumerated. If we apply the same reasoning Brother Ramses uses, that means fast skimmers are disallowed. Similarly, it means a Heavy Rending weapon is disallowed, and any other number of petty arguments. The point is, that his line of reasoning is obviously not followed by the rules anywhere, meaning explicit permission does not need to be given (contrary to what he argues).

:tu:

"the different types of vehicle are: transport, tank, open-topped, fast, skimmer and walker. These types can be combined to define, for example, a fast skimmer or an open-topped walker, in which case the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types." pg 56

[Dan VK]

awww, all that for nothing.

still it was nice to rgue with you all :tu:

;)

 

Great catch, Grey Mage.

[Grimtooth]

Fast skimmers would be similarly disallowed because the rule book never explicitly says you can be a fast skimmer, it only speaks about being fast and being a skimmer.

 

I'm pretty sure the Vehicle section does explicitly cover that. :P

 

In a sense, but not in the sense Brother Ramses is claiming for his argument. The vehicle types are listed, and the skimmer rule talks about how fast skimmers can move 24", but there is no listing of "fast skimmer" as a vehicle type when the types are enumerated. If we apply the same reasoning Brother Ramses uses, that means fast skimmers are disallowed. Similarly, it means a Heavy Rending weapon is disallowed, and any other number of petty arguments. The point is, that his line of reasoning is obviously not followed by the rules anywhere, meaning explicit permission does not need to be given (contrary to what he argues).

^_^

"the different types of vehicle are: transport, tank, open-topped, fast, skimmer and walker. These types can be combined to define, for example, a fast skimmer or an open-topped walker, in which case the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types." pg 56

 

Oh snap!

[BOBMAKENZIE]

It just occurred to me upon rereading your post that you also mentioned weapons as such; "In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile....A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type." pg27

[Grimtooth]

It goes back to a permissive ruleset.

 

Both vehicles and in a small part the weapons Bob brought have explicit permission to mix their types. As I have pointed out several times, unit types do not have that permission. The player cannot raise the defense, "It doesn't say I can't so I can."

[Brother Valerius]

See, that's where I differ. You have to have permission, but I disagree that you have to have explicit permission given in one single ruling. When the rules themselves say two things without either one negating the other, I maintain that this is permission from the ruleset to combine the two individual rules, and the fact that it is not explicit is irrelevant.

[Grey Mage]

Thats a horribly slippery slope.

 

Not saying its wrong, but its not always right either.