Heldrake double whammy legal?

[Caitsidhe]

Other people have stated it over and over again for you Ted. If they had intended for Vector Strike (for any model that can do it) to sacrifice a shooting attack to use the ability, they would have said so in the universal rule. It would say "instead" or it would direclty say, "may sacrifice the use of one of its shooting attacks" and so on. Your logic does not track. No amount of wanting it to be true is going to make your argument hold up because it cannot be proven valid in the inverse or across other examples.

I know it sucks to say, "I was wrong." You, me, and Fonzi don't like it. Fonzi and I still can choke it out. You don't even have to go that far. If you can't bring yourself to say the words, just let the matter drop.

[ted1138]

And where does it say Vector Striking replaces a specific weapon?

Oh that's right it doesn't. Because if it did, according to your own interpretation, a FMC with no ranged weapon could not, ipso facto, vector strike.

It doesn't, and I've never said it does. Would you please try to keep your argument to things that have been said instead of making stuff up.

And as for your FMC comment; you don't need a ranged weapon to VS(it's not 'sacrifice a shooting attack to perform a VS'), it's perform a VS and then in the shooting phase one of your weapon's(if you have any) "counts as" having been fired(that's "counts as" not 'has', there's a difference).

[ted1138]

Other people have stated it over and over again for you Ted. If they had intended for Vector Strike (for any model that can do it) to sacrifice a shooting attack to use the ability, they would have said so in the universal rule. It would say "instead" or it would direclty say, "may sacrifice the use of one of its shooting attacks" and so on. Your logic does not track. No amount of wanting it to be true is going to make your argument hold up because it cannot be proven valid in the inverse or across other examples.

I know it sucks to say, "I was wrong." You, me, and Fonzi don't like it. Fonzi and I still can choke it out. You don't even have to go that far. If you can't bring yourself to say the words, just let the matter drop.

You're right. If I can't make you read the rule on page 80, what's the point of talking to any of you? Go back to your ignorance and blind obedience...



“Don’t just teach your children to read…
Teach them to question what they read.
Teach them to question everything.”
― George Carlin

[Power Klawz]

I like how you're attemtping to make sweeping philosophical statements unironically in conjunction with a rules dispute about a game with toy soldiers.

Something tells me if you were as clever as you think you are you'd have a talk show or something to do this on.

At least a podcast.

Maybe like a bimonthly pamphlet you mail to family and friends?

[Denzark]

Is that what passes for a rebuttal in your neck of the woods?

It works for me - this picture is similar to the picture I have of you from your posts.

[Nabterayl]

Really, guys? There are other 40K rules forums you can post in if all you want to do is insult people you think are making bad arguments, then insult those people for thinking you are making bad arguments, then insult those people for insulting you ...

Some of the folks slinging insults in this thread weren't around the last time the mods had to yell at people for turning the rules forum into kiddie hour, but some of you were. Take it somewhere else.

[Tynskel]

Only if you have four weapons, "Zooming Flyers can fire up to four of their weapons using their full ballistic skill if they have moved at either combat speed or cruising speed that turn", it doesn't say 'Zooming Flyers can fire four weapons, using their full ballistic skill if they have moved at either combat speed or cruising speed that turn', as most people seem to be reading it...

There is nothing in the rules that states that the Vector Strike replaces a weapon. For all intents and purposes, it is an additional weapon.

Not to mention, it is an additional weapon, that is fired in the shooting phase, rolled for in the movement phase.

[Tynskel]

Really, guys? There are other 40K rules forums you can post in if all you want to do is insult people you think are making bad arguments, then insult those people for thinking you are making bad arguments, then insult those people for insulting you ...

Some of the folks slinging insults in this thread weren't around the last time the mods had to yell at people for turning the rules forum into kiddie hour, but some of you were. Take it somewhere else.

I don't think we are gunna break 200!

[DarkLink]

This thread needs to die. Everything that's relevant to the actual rules have been discussed, all that's left is a vain attempt to educate apparent illiterates, and that seems to be a lost cause.

[Denzark]

Really, guys? There are other 40K rules forums you can post in if all you want to do is insult people you think are making bad arguments, then insult those people for thinking you are making bad arguments, then insult those people for insulting you ...

Some of the folks slinging insults in this thread weren't around the last time the mods had to yell at people for turning the rules forum into kiddie hour, but some of you were. Take it somewhere else.

Yeah, really....