New 40k edition

[WestRider]

6 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Your origin source was different than mine.  I don't use Google for things this simple.  But I will say that its the same result.  Waiting for something excitedly that on't happen was the thrust.  It didnt really require much analysis but...we're gamers so...here we are.

Your source is not the original. "Bated breath" dates back to 1596, while "baited breath" is first recorded in 1933, in a poem parodying people misspelling "bated".

[Lord Hanaur]

Just now, Kremmet said:

WestRider is correct. 

I definitely understood what you were trying to say, but the thread is riddled with this kind of joke. It definitely didn't require this much analysis.

Also, since you don't search for "things this simple," you mean breath and not breathe. To breathe is the action while breath is the noun.

Again...we're gamers so this is how things go on a gamer thread...  Le sigh.  Onward and upward.  

[Lord Hanaur]

Just now, WestRider said:

Your source is not the original. "Bated breath" dates back to 1596, while "baited breath" is first recorded in 1933, in a poem parodying people misspelling "bated".

Again...  Goggle.  Useless trivia.  Focus on the point and you'll do fine.  =)

[Kremmet]

Just now, Lord Hanaur said:

Again...  Goggle.  Useless trivia.  Focus on the point and you'll do fine.  =)

I will endeavor to goggle the point in the future.

[WestRider]

So, just what is your original source, anyhow? Every mention of it I can find online agrees that "baited breath" is a mis-spelling. I can cite the original out of my Collected Shakespeare if you'd prefer.

[Lord Hanaur]

Just now, Kremmet said:

I will endeavor to goggle the point in the future.

I wouldn't.  

You know what Google is good for though?  It's good for people who want to try and win an argument by not thinking about the argument, and just finding a link thats somehow related with a headline that SEEMS to agree, and throwing it at you.  Lol.  Facebook is THE WORST for it.  But people know Google, is there and they love to seem smarter than they are by using it.  It's definitely a thing in our culture now.

Lock me in a cage without a computer and some philosophy professors to observe the debate.  Thats what I'd love.  Sounds like a great game show to me!  

[Lord Hanaur]

3 minutes ago, WestRider said:

So, just what is your original source, anyhow? Every mention of it I can find online agrees that "baited breath" is a mis-spelling. I can cite the original out of my Collected Shakespeare if you'd prefer.

I don't think it preys upon me enough to care too much, honestly.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the point being made.  I'd say skip all the unnecessary page flipping and talk 40K.

[Kremmet]

2 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

I wouldn't.  

You know what Google is good for though?  It's good for people who want to try and win an argument by not thinking about the argument, and just finding a link thats somehow related with a headline that SEEMS to agree, and throwing it at you.  Lol.  Facebook is THE WORST for it.  But people know Google, is there and they love to seem smarter than they are by using it.  It's definitely a thing in our culture now.

Lock me in a cage without a computer and some philosophy professors to observe the debate.  Thats what I'd love.  Sounds like a great game show to me!  

Interesting that you'd consider gathering information just makes you seem smarter. 

In your example, who are you debating in the cage if the philosophy professors are observing it? Would you stay on topic about 40k? That would make sense if you were debating yourself there and it would definitely make sense that you'd love it.

[Lord Hanaur]

4 minutes ago, Kremmet said:

Interesting that you'd consider gathering information just makes you seem smarter. 

In your example, who are you debating in the cage if the philosophy professors are observing it? Would you stay on topic about 40k? That would make sense if you were debating yourself there and it would definitely make sense that you'd love it.

I'm pretty sure your coy turn of phrase is an alteration of what I really meant.  Also, I'm not the one who went on this tangent.  I used a simple turn of phrase and you all wanted to debate the phrases genesis and meaning and history.  Well you're totally free to claim credit for that tangent, because I won't.  In the meantime I've done nothing but encourage you to let it go.  Which you elected not to do.  

So we can keep going on and on about this, sure.  Your move.

[pretre]

Or, you could just admit you made a mistake? Just sayin'...

[Threejacks]

 " layered over the top of the core game rules."

 

  This statement above is to me,one of the best things about this game engine.For TO`s it is so easy to add in additional effects and abilities.

    The Attacker/Defender special rules they show above are something that AoS uses in all of its narrative scenarios,,or some form of,it can really swing a game in certain cases and is very fun to play with.They seem to be implying that these will be used in even the competative games,,which is way cool.I need to come up with some for a future AoS event:)

 

[Lord Hanaur]

1 minute ago, pretre said:

Or, you could just admit you made a mistake? Just sayin'...

I didn't make a mistake.  So what are you talking about?

[WestRider]

When one side can support their argument with outside sources, and the other has nothing backing them up but their own word, AND is continually trying to change the subject, that's a pretty reliable guide that they know they're wrong, and just aren't willing to admit it. Just sayin'.

[fluger]

1 hour ago, phyfor88 said:

This really is my main concern. I only have Orks And they have so little shooting. Either the Orks will be unreckonizable or all about a single phase,assault.

Orks have plenty of shooting, always have.  Get your warboss up in there with a power klaw.  Assuming he hits on 4s with da Klaw,  he averages over 2 wounds a turn.  Also, the draw back in 7th is that Imp Knights swing first.  Now, MegaNobz on the charge can do work before it swings.  

Assuming they hit on 4s again, 5 MegaNobz should average 11 wounds on the charge.  Assuming you pinged off even two wounds prior, the Knight is now crippled...

[fluger]

3 minutes ago, WestRider said:

When one side can support their argument with outside sources, and the other has nothing backing them up but their own word, AND is continually trying to change the subject, that's a pretty reliable guide that they know they're wrong, and just aren't willing to admit it. Just sayin'.

It's more important to never admit fault than anything else.  

[Lord Hanaur]

10 minutes ago, WestRider said:

When one side can support their argument with outside sources, and the other has nothing backing them up but their own word, AND is continually trying to change the subject, that's a pretty reliable guide that they know they're wrong, and just aren't willing to admit it. Just sayin'.

What...are you talking about?  What..."sources".  This whole thing is becoming surreal.  No one told you you were wrong about where the term might have originally come from.  No one said that.  I didn't.  I just told you that wasn't where *I* heard it (and frankly I doubt you did, you just googled its origin).  So if you're trying to suggest that I said you were wrong, read the posts again.  I didn't say that.  I just found it amusing that you went to google to argue its origin,even though everyone understands the meaning of the damn turn of phrase and no one is benefitted by knowing what year it might have been coined.  lol.

I'm not WRONG because I never said YOU were!  that I learned the turn of phrase in a different context couldn't be less relevant.  YOU made it about that, I didn't.  Go read what I wrote.  I never told you that your google source was wrong.  I specifically told you that wasn't where I learned it.  I said it hardly mattered.  It apparently matters to you, but I don't know why.  It's the dumbest argument to have.

[tombking]

hey i know we all like arguing about nit picks... but lets argue about whether Knights are OP or not and whatever new rules reveals happen...

I kinda like the idea that it is now possible but not really probable to take out a Knight with a ginormous amount of lasgun fire. Probably not gonna happen but the game where it does will be forever etched in the players memory.

[Lord Hanaur]

Just now, tombking said:

hey i know we all like arguing about nit picks... but lets argue about whether Knights are OP or not and whatever new rules reveals happen...

I kinda like the idea that it is now possible but not really probable to take out a Knight with a ginormous amount of lasgun fire. Probably not gonna happen but the game where it does will be forever etched in the players memory.

DEFINITELY not going to happen.  BUT...  Jenkins could actually FINISH the Knight off. I could see that happening sometimes.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I like lamp.

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

What...are you talking about?  What..."sources".  This whole thing is becoming surreal.  No one told you you were wrong about where the term might have originally come from.  No one said that.  I didn't.  I just told you that wasn't where *I* heard it (and frankly I doubt you did, you just googled its origin).  So if you're trying to suggest that I said you were wrong, read the posts again.  I didn't say that.  I just found it amusing that you went to google to argue its origin,even though everyone understands the meaning of the damn turn of phrase and no one is benefitted by knowing what year it might have been coined.  lol.

I'm not WRONG because I never said YOU were!  that I learned the turn of phrase in a different context couldn't be less relevant.  YOU made it about that, I didn't.  Go read what I wrote.  I never told you that your google source was wrong.  I specifically told you that wasn't where I learned it.  I said it hardly mattered.  It apparently matters to you, but I don't know why.  It's the dumbest argument to have.

You made a statement. I produced evidence that that statement was objectively wrong. You claimed that it was still correct. Your statement and mine are mutually exclusive, so your continued claim that yours is correct and valid is implicitly stating that mine must be wrong.

This isn't something subjective like whether apples or oranges taste better. There is a clear history here, showing the appearance of the phrase "bated breath", followed by the misspelling "baited breath", and then by attempts like the one you made earlier to explain "baited breath", since it doesn't actually make any sense as such.

Also, Google can be used for things like quickly finding a citable source for something that one learned in college lit classes when one no longer has access to an academic library.

Show an actual source, not just something you heard from someone, that "baited breath" has a distinct and separate origin, and I'll drop the whole issue in a hot second. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. But don't go around treating facts like opinions. That leads to all manner of errors.

[InfestedKerrigan]

You can't fault alternative information sources. If it is good enough for the Administration....

[Lord Hanaur]

17 minutes ago, WestRider said:

You made a statement. I produced evidence that that statement was objectively wrong.

Im stopping you right here.  Nothing you said "proved me objectively wrong".  So I'm stopping you right there.  You are absolutely not the arbiter of what I know or where I learned it.  I obviously knew the turn of phrase.  It doesn't even MATTER that I learned it elsewhere from this google search you did and YOU didn't learn it from that source either.  

 

I learned it as a parable, which our teacher often used to illustrate his point.  You cannot be OBJECTIVELY right about where I learned it or where I heard it.  So can we move on?  the only thing you proved was that you can Google a historical "likely genesis of the phrase".  thats what you proved and no one argued that it probably was the genesis.  I didn't.  No one argued against it.  So Im glad you learned how the phrtase came to be.  Dont tell ME where I learned it.  You can't.  

[InfestedKerrigan]

Guys, your 4chan is showing. Untwist your banana hammocks and lets get back to 8th edition. 

[cryxian]

Can we please stay on topic?

[WestRider]

I never said I proved you wrong. I said I produced evidence. Evidence can be countered by other evidence. Evidence cannot be countered by something you heard from some teacher. I can find no evidence find that "baited breath" has ever been anything other than a misspelling/misinterpretation of "bated breath". You show me some actual, documented evidence, and I'll admit it immediately.

I never claimed to be objectively right about where you learned it, either. I just claimed to be (to the extent of the evidence provided) objectively correct about the actual origin of the statement. Just because you heard it from a teacher doesn't mean anything. I had a teacher tell me once that 11-7=11.

Also, consider this: What can a parable based on error do, but lead people into further error?