Grey Knights and Psk-out grenades

[Angelis Mortis]

Moving the goalposts much? We've gone from "clearly defined" to "implied if you read between the lines and cherry-pick your words."

 

Its not moving the goal posts at all. To most people, its very simple and CLEARLY DEFINED. For you, you want to "cherry-pick your words" and if it doesn't explicitly say the specific "cherry picked words" you chose to accept, then it can not be reconciled. Call it moving the goal posts if you want, but at least my goal posts are on the field. Yours aren't even in the same universe. You will not get the answer you want if you start the debate with an impossible to achieve conclusion. Grenades clearly are an attack, you simply wont accept that.

[Chengar Qordath]

Moving the goalposts much? We've gone from "clearly defined" to "implied if you read between the lines and cherry-pick your words."

 

Its not moving the goal posts at all. To most people, its very simple and CLEARLY DEFINED. For you, you want to "cherry-pick your words" and if it doesn't explicitly say the specific "cherry picked words" you chose to accept, then it can not be reconciled. Call it moving the goal posts if you want, but at least my goal posts are on the field. Yours aren't even in the same universe. You will not get the answer you want if you start the debate with an impossible to achieve conclusion. Grenades clearly are an attack, you simply wont accept that.

Insults and personal attacks are both against B&C policy and don't change the fact that nowhere in the rulebook are the effects of grenades explicitly defined as an attack.

 

Yes, common sense says that the effects of grenades are an attack, but GW's rules don't always follow common sense.

[jeffersonian000]

Actually, GW has stated that we should be using common sense when playing, as they wrote the rules based on what they consider common sense (which may differ from the rest of the universe). While that does not clear them of blame for writing crappy rules, it does resolve the RAW vs RAI debate by simply going with RAP (Rules as Practicle). In this case, the grenade in question effects all psykers, while the BoP rule render all psyker effects only to the Justicar/Knight of the Flame/random squad member for resolution. The most practicle conclusion is that the GK squad leader/random GK squad member is the only model effected by Psyk-out grenades due to the BoP rule. This fits both the Rules as Written and the apparent intent behind the rules, allowing play to continue without further disruption. And as always, you be fall back on the only solid rule in the whoe game: roll off to end the argument so play can continue.

 

SJ

[Angelis Mortis]

Moving the goalposts much? We've gone from "clearly defined" to "implied if you read between the lines and cherry-pick your words."

 

Its not moving the goal posts at all. To most people, its very simple and CLEARLY DEFINED. For you, you want to "cherry-pick your words" and if it doesn't explicitly say the specific "cherry picked words" you chose to accept, then it can not be reconciled. Call it moving the goal posts if you want, but at least my goal posts are on the field. Yours aren't even in the same universe. You will not get the answer you want if you start the debate with an impossible to achieve conclusion. Grenades clearly are an attack, you simply wont accept that.

Insults and personal attacks are both against B&C policy and don't change the fact that nowhere in the rulebook are the effects of grenades explicitly defined as an attack.

 

Yes, common sense says that the effects of grenades are an attack, but GW's rules don't always follow common sense.

 

See, yet again. I'm seeing a pattern now. First off, nothing I said was a personal attack. It was a direct observation of your failure of logic and debate. I was not attacking, I was simply stating the obvious fallacy in doing so due to the ridiculous standards for proof you set. Let me give you an analogy. If I were to take a box of scrabble pieces, shake them up and spill them out over and over and expect them to spell the words "bolter and chainsword" in order without rearrangement withing 3 minutes, that would be a pretty ridiculous standard wouldn't it? Ridiculous to the point that the predicted outcome is about 100% failure? So its a pre-ordained outcome. Sort of like your premise about grenades not being an attack because it doesn't say the exact phrase "Grenades are an attack". Nevermind that you have overwhelming evidence where it implies or states with other terms that is indeed an attack about 100 times in the three paragraphs it dedicates to grenades. You will not accept it because it does not specifically and explicitly state what you want it to. Unfortunately, you are assigning a higher standard of proof than the vast majority of people who play the game demand. That is why it futile to debate with you. You can call that a personal attack all you want, but is nothing but an observation of the obvious and admission of failure in trying to reason with you. Some people can not be reasoned with.

 

So, in conclusion, consider this discussion done as far as I'm concerned. You can not debate in good faith and you can not take criticism. I've made my point, and thats the end of it for me.

[number6]

Right. Another topic where tempers are flaring and posts get ugly. And some of the usual suspects in play again?....;)

 

As I clearly stated earlier, I am going to be ultrastrict until peace reigns supreme here. Next time I close a topic, I will be issuing warnings to everybody involved. "Instigators" are only part of the problem. It's the way people respond in posts as well.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON IF A POST OFFENDS YOU. If you reply as negatively as you perceive, you are also part of the problem and you will suffer the consequences.

 

Am I clear enough? :angry: