67 replies to this topic

[Keeshu]

KelesK, on 06 June 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Pariah.. I have a large deal of respect for you but surely you are having me on...

"If any of the following weapons are equipped in an OmniMech’s arm, any Lower Arm Actuator or Hand Actuator that was present in the base configuration is automatically removed"

Sorta sounds like you are reading it as "any Lower Arm Actuator or Hand Actuator that was present and the base configuration is automatically removed"
instead of "any Lower Arm Actuator or Hand Actuator that was present in the base configuration is automatically removed"

[Pariah Devalis]

Mmhm. As I said, nothing in the rules takes away the hardpoint. It only takes the actuators out that are in the base configuration

Be happy. You can stick in more guns now!

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 06 June 2014 - 06:08 AM.

[TibsVT]

Keeshu, on 06 June 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Sorta sounds like you are reading it as "any Lower Arm Actuator or Hand Actuator that was present and the base configuration is automatically removed"
instead of "any Lower Arm Actuator or Hand Actuator that was present in the base configuration is automatically removed"

Realistically it equates to the same thing. Either way it replaces the original loadout.

I don't really think this will be resolved by us bickering back and forward though. Almost as bad as debating the rules of Batchall.

Pariah Devalis, on 06 June 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Be happy. You can stick in more guns now!

Assuming we ever get it.

Edited by KelesK, 06 June 2014 - 06:13 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

The problem is you are arguing that it replaces the original loadout, when it says nothing to that extent. The only thing it says it replaces are the actuators in the original loadout. Why assume something that is not in there whatsoever? That is boggling the crap out of me right now. All it mentions is the actuator. That is it. Your quote is the same as my quote, and it specifies the actuator of the original configuration. Nothing about hardpoints whatsoever.

It is illogical to assume it would do something that nothing else does with nothing to state it does so.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 06 June 2014 - 06:13 AM.

[Keeshu]

KelesK, on 06 June 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

Realistically it equates to the same thing. Either way it replaces the original loadout.

I don't really think this will be resolved by us bickering back and forward though. Almost as bad as debating the rules of Batchall.

Let me use an example:
"Remove the frog in the pond"
vs
"Remove the frog and the pond"


Get it now?


Replace Frog with actuators, and the pond with the base configuration and that's what we have. I can't make it any simpler.

[TibsVT]

Keeshu, on 06 June 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Let me use an example:
"Remove the frog in the pond"
vs
"Remove the frog and the pond"


Get it now?


Replace Frog with actuators, and the pond with the base configuration and that's what we have. I can't make it any simpler.

That's not a very good example but either way I'm chasing clarification (although unlikely). I just interpret the statement differently to the two of you.

[Keeshu]

Welp we've been off topic a bit too long. Even if I do love to talk about the Mad Dog. What do you think the chances are that they will add all the clans? Which clans do you think deserve to be in the most? And is breaking lore to bring in the clans that normally aren't there because of their popularity is alright?

KelesK, on 06 June 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

That's not a very good example but either way I'm chasing clarification (although unlikely). I just interpret the statement differently to the two of you.

Oh well, I tried as hard as I could to help. Hopefully this problem won't pop up for you again in the future.

[TibsVT]

I still say they should add at least the supporting Clans. I highly doubt everyone will get a fair go though sadly.