Malakithe Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Good that it's apoc. Don't need to see that crazy thing blowing up my poor little DA in small games lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 What's it's Turtling Penis Laser do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 I think we'll see more weapon options when it's book drops. It won't HAVE to take the Multi-Driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Good that it's apoc. Don't need to see that crazy thing blowing up my poor little DA in small games lol It's 600pts and it's a Lord of War option for Tau, so you could potentially see one in a 800pt game (or even a 750 if Fire Warriors or Ethereals get any cheaper.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Pattern Bombardment is pretty hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Rules link here: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/Datasheets/Tau-Kx139-Ta%E2%80%99unar.pdf Rules actually look balanced. He's a beast, no question, but for 600pts of lords of war, actually looks like he's pointed right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Wow not experimental? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Wow not experimental? It also doesn't say "40k approved"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 It doesn't need to. It's a Dataslate. Also, Tau Empire don't exist in 30k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 It doesn't need to. It's a Dataslate. Also, Tau Empire don't exist in 30k. Doesn't say "Dataslate" either.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Show me where these fulfill your requirements. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Eldar_Shadow_Spectres.pdf http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Imperial_Guard_Stormblade.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 All unit entries are, by definition, dataslates, even the ones in codices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Datasheet, not Dataslate, but yeah. None of the ones in Codexes are labeled as Datasheets on the page either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Wow not experimental? It also doesn't say "40k approved"... It doesn't need to. It's a Dataslate. Also, Tau Empire don't exist in 30k. Doesn't say "Dataslate" either.... Show me where these fulfill your requirements. What requirements? I'm just commenting about what it doesn't say.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted September 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 You suggested it wasn't a legal option due to it not having "40k Approved" on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 You suggested it wasn't a legal option due to it not having "40k Approved" on it. No, I didn't. You read what you wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 No, I didn't. You read what you wanted. With all do respect pax, your saying of what you did after everyone was "semi" complaining about it being filth, implies it is not approved for 40k normal games. I understand to you that is not the case, but you present 99 people with the scenario and they will make that assumption because it is a normal way of conversing. Granted you see the world in a literal way, so to you it was not literally said. However, you need to accept that those who understand nuance and implied meaning will take it as others have. No need to argue, just an acceptance of how nuanced conversation works with those that are not literal in their conversation style. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I can re-hash my reasoning, if you want further clarity. VonVilkee commented that the linked rules lacked the "experiemental" label that many of the previous FW rules had. I commented regarding the lack of "40k approved" as well, as the ones of the past which lacked experimental labeling would have that instead. Though not stated, the absence of both "stamps" implies a strong lack of need for stamps. I didn't think this needed mentioning at this time. InfestedKerrigan (IK) made a false conclusion that the above 2 comments (both VonVikee's and mine) somehow indicated that we thought the rules were somehow invalid. He also commented that the linked rules constituted a "dataslate." I commented that the term "dataslate" was not actually printed on the linked rules. This is true, but doesn't not invalidate IK's point. I was not really addressing the previous posts, but more adding a third comment to the thread regarding the absence of words, which had a humorous ring to me (not laugh out loud humor, just a mild smile). And to be fair, It still a true statement and on topic. I now get 3 posts from various people commenting about some sort of grading system, as if I have one to address a subject that I'm really not talking about. I respond with quotes to define what I am talking about by showing the words I used. Like many of my online conversations within this forum, others suspect I have an angle on every comment I make - I can see this, but they should be able to see that they are seeing more than is said too. I would describe IK's reaction as some sort of meta-threading, where he's taking outside understanding of my character to interpret meaning behind my posts, rather than just reading them at face value. And now IK comments again, voicing opposition to an argument that I'm not debating, but putting the words in my mouth so there is something to oppose. And I explain what happened, but it's too short for them to understand, so now I have the long winded response. I really do not feel at fault here, if anything, the thread is being derailed because people really want an explaination to a very short comment I made that they didn't understand. I don't ask about every random photo that is added to my threads, so I don't really get the interrogation regarding you guys getting upset over short, true statements that were on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Ordo is full of smart, capable people. I don't really understand why you are getting confused over simple comments that are intended to read as written. PS: If you'd rather, I'd be fine with a mod just deleting this long side conversation. Get us back on FW units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Ordo is full of smart, capable people. I don't really understand why you are getting confused over simple comments that are intended to read as written. Pax, again, your communication queue's is at odds with 99+% of the rest of the world. You need to accept that in common communication, what you wrote, or even more so if you would have said it, would have been construed as others have taken it. You need to accept that you dont pick up on sarcasm (very well) or innuendo. Where you said what, was what the vast majority of the world would have taken as implying it was not allowed in a normal 40k game. It was said at a time that a contrarian view would be expected, so when said it, it as taken as such. Couple that with the previous FW rulings that the 40k approved stamp was needed, you only get a further re-enforcement of said interpretation. Again, you need to accept that it is you that is not picking up on the verbal implications that you are giving off (un-knowingly or un-wittingly). In this world, intention is a large part of communication. It is not just about what is written, but about the inflection, intent, innuendo, etc (add in any other "in" word). Example. "take my wife please"....look it up on the internet. famous comedy (albeit hack) routine.....the comedian didnt' what you to take his wife...it was the joe that matters....everything is not literal. Sometimes it would be better and probably less frustrating for you to just say "sorry, not my intent", then trying to prove your point. Again, not trying to be an ass, just pointing out that it is your way of viewing the world that is at odds with the vast majority of the rest of said world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I do get what you are saying. Example. "take my wife please"....look it up on the internet. famous comedy (albeit hack) routine.....the comedian didnt' what you to take his wife...it was the joe that matters....everything is not literal.. Though this was a funny one to look up: Henny explained the origin of his classic line "Take my wife, please" as a misinterpretation: he took his wife to a radio show and asked a stagehand to escort his wife to a seat. But his request was taken as a joke, and Youngman used the line countless times ever after It turns out that this one was intended to be taken literally, and it was misconstrued by others...which then lead it to becoming a joke. I know, not your intended function for the example...Ironic, a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 No, I didn't. You read what you wanted. You don't actually know that he read it at all- maybe he used a text-to-speech program, or maybe he just posted blindly to the thread and got lucky with a response that happened to make sense in context. Or maybe he has an automatic parsing program that writes responses for him and he never had anything to do with the text you saw! Two can play at the obtuse interpretation game, you see. (I get that you're not doing on purpose, but the fact that this same conversation happens every time means it's more than just a coincidence. I think you're gonna have to accept that common understandings of the things you say are sometimes at odds with what you may have meant.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.