jervisjohnsons

Bill, your arguments are like a 4 year old playing in a bowl of semi cold, coagulated spaghetti o's.

ya new lizards make deamons cry, lol about time.

brian... sarcasm is the tool used by the ignorant. my IQ is 128, far above the reach of the average "4 year old playing in a bowl of semi cold, coagulated spaghetti o's"

you claim we have proven nothing... yet all i see in your argument is specualtion and opinion. Neither proves your point. if anything you've weakened the point you were trying to originally make.

you sir have proven nothing!

you're losing steam big guy.... the air has just deflated from your argument and you're scrapping the side of the toilet bowl trying to claw your way out. not on my watch turd burglar

Bill, I don't give a fuck if your IQ is 193. It's equal to rock right now.

I've proven the basis of my argument. What you guys are doing is substituting the word Upgrade with replace.

My argument hasn't lost steam. I am just tired of arguing with dullards about a pretty lame ass game anymore. Sorry. I just don't really feel that I need justify my opinion beyond what I've justified.

Your claims lack vindication; it is based on the premise that object a replaces uobject b, but inherently, object a is simply upgraded.

If you understood basic english, which, from your IQ score we'd assume you do (However, your typing goes against that) you'd understand that replace, and upgrade, and the phrase regardless of form, are pretty cut and dry on this subject.

GO GO CHAOS!!!

lol....

well... IQ and Verbal intelligence are two seperate things. i may score relatively high on an IQ test but medium on a verbal test score.

that aside. if you don't want to agrue about it then why start a thread based on the topic in question. i thought you would be welcoming of other "interperatations" of the rule in question. no?

I was, until my logic was declared flawed and wrong, and people try to make an ass out of me, for thinking outside of the dullard box. I apologize for holding a different opinion. I didn't know I was in the soviet union of warhammer clubs.

flawed yes... wrong no.

ass out of you? never tried to do that. these are not personal attacks. just attacking the argument in question B.

outside the box.. i suppose.

think and say what you want man. i'm not telling you what to say. Joe and i are just putting our views out there as well. if this were a democracy then we'd vote right?

Aaron - yes
joe - yes
bill - yes
Brian - No

%25 B you've been bvoted off the island! Democracy wins!

How the fuck is my logic flawed by using basic principles to formulate an opinion? Come on, Plato, show me.

how is it flawed... because you base your conclusions on assumptions which would conclude that it is inherently flawed.. but that's just off the top of my head.

This all sounds like "Quotations for Brainy Smurf"

I think a large part of the controversy is avoided because EW's are magical weapons.

So to say that people are going to drop down to a hand weapon to avoid combat from something that ignores magical attacks won't occur, because if you have a magical weapon you must use it.

Which is another reason why I happen to think that EW is just a new rule on its own, an independent rule, and it is clearly not saying that EW makes Hand weapons and lances +S and magical attacks.


I do disagree with Brian and have stated that I think the idea behind his reason is flawed. I don't think the EW is a blanket rule on all weapons. "The regardless of form" does not cover hand weapons nor lances via the rules. If the knights had options for 5 other weapons to "upgrade" to, name aside, I would say that the EW bonus does not get placed onto those weapons as well.

Although my feelings may be different from the fact on how I have to rule for the tournament, I think it is important to show that this is the way it needs to be played, for the simple fact that it does not specifically state that lances gain +1S etc.

Aaron, that isn't the case. By ruling that it IS a magical weapon, you are saying it can be removed by Vaul's unmaking, etc. Treated as a magical weapon and is a magical weapon are completely different things.

Treated as= similar, but not equal.

is=a state of being.

Therefore, you'd have to rule they have a regular hand weapon, and since they aren't specifically described as being magical weapons exactly, they aren't governed by the fact that you have to use it over a regular weapon.

did you just give the deffinition of "is" to try to prove a point?

B - when people do things like that, people stop reading what you wrote and start thinking... " geeze, this guy's a butt monkey"

granted i understand your point, but if it was anyone other than you that said that i'd be ripping them a new asshole right now.

since when did you become all RAW? i thought you were about "the fun of the game?"

you been talkin to Ed too much havn't you? see.. that's a problem right there. Maule seems alright, then he sneaks inside your brain and you're screwed. damn you Ed Maule!

bdickj wrote:Aaron, that isn't the case. By ruling that it IS a magical weapon

I am not ruling that it is a magical weapon, I am saying that the rules state it is a magical weapon.

I am not treating it like one, it is a magical weapon, because it counts as one.

The weapon benefits from magical attacks from its kool little "hexes"

Therefore, you'd have to rule they have a regular hand weapon

Not true; they might have one as stated in the BRB, but they can't use them as also stated in the BRB.