" a piss ant blog" -Rikimaru

"Dethtron, you are...an asshole" - 38% of Dick Move Readers

" I probably won't read unless I'm bored as shit at work" - A. Hack

"I cannot bring myself to actually read this drivel"- anonymous

"pox riddled post coital stain of a blog"- anonymous

Friday, July 2, 2010

Friday Night Internet Fight Round 18- Laubersheimer Industries Style

As promised, this begins my 2 week hiatus from Friday Night Internet Fight. Fear not, though, as you will be getting some of the finest guest snowmobiling ever seen. This week might really raise the bar. My good friend Lauby of Laubersheimer Industries, who I met at Civil War camp in the summer between 6th and 7th grade- no lie, will be throwing down this week. To keep the author's separate, Lauby will be snowmobiling in a blueish purpley color of his own choosing that I shall dub "boo-berry."

I'm off to take care of some business right now- MBA related stuff, constructing a huge inflatable pool sure to kill most of my tiny yard, swimming lessons/knee rehab for my dog, and further attempts to find live-action Star Wars Porn- it surely has to exist, why can I not find it? Don't worry though, I'll be popping back in throughout the weekend to say hello and possibly let you in on a little top-secret bit of subversion I'm tentatively calling "Project Mayhem."  Until then remember that there is a poll at the upper right of your screen.  Vote early; vote often.

So Dethtron has asked me sub in for this week's FNIF since he just plain can't be bothered.

Well, this blog IS called Dick Move.... In any case, I said 'yes'.

Thankfully, before he went off to look for naked pictures of Rue McClanahan or eat bees or whatever the hell it is that he does when he's not blogging, he gave me a number of suggestions from his own research. Which is not only nice, but smart since he knows damn well that I can't be bothered to use the Internet for much more than trying to make sure rule #34 stays true.

So, tearing myself away from a busy schedule of pretending that I wasn't looking at Rescue Rangers/Animal Cops erotic crossover fanfiction sites, I began to dig through the electronic owl pellets he had sent me.

I decided to spare you bunch of slack jawed meth addicts the fine people that comprise the Dick Move readership the pain of reading yet another thread about about people whining about their codex being underpowered, people being confused about the DH/WH debacle or even a little gem of a fight about abbreviations.

No, I decided to punish you even harder by snowmobiling a rules question thread. HAHAHA!

This week, a simple question about the IG Manticore devolved into the exact kind of mindless jack-assery you'd expect it to. ...and you're going to read all of it.

So without further extraneous bullshit: FIGHT!

Oh... and as usual: something about name changes and funny avatar pictures.

phantommaster -What happens to a weapon destroyed result on the Manticore? Does it destroy a single rocket or the entire rack? And when you use a Techpriest on it, can you fire rockets that have been repaired but not yet fired? I can't find any answers on pages 54 or 103 of the codex. A well reasoned and common question. Thank you, phantommaster, I will not be making fun of you.

GWAR! - Uh oh. GWAR! is involved. The entire rack. It's a Single Weapon that can fire 4 times, not 4 weapons that can fire once. If you repair it, it can fire however many shots it had left. This doesn't seem to be the GWAR! we all know and love. This was actually helpful and, dare I say, respectful?

phantommaster - Shame, thanks though And this is the exact point of any discussion that most people would say "Thank you GWAR!, for your uncharacteristically quick and easy answer to this question". Unfortunately, someone pushed the start button on controller 2. A new challenger has appeared!

Lord_Mortis - I sort of disagree with that. Note from the future: this is a lie. You completely disagree with that. The whole vehicle is called a Manticore Missile Launcher, but the actual weapons are Storm Eagle rockets, not a Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher. Similarly to how a Vendetta can have individual Hellfury missiles and Stormravens can have bloodstrike missiles. A weapon destroyed result isn't going to destroy all remaining missiles on the Vendetta or Stormraven, so I would think that a weapon destroyed result would only destroy a single missile. Unless there is just something I missed as I don't really play Imperial Guard. Feel free to commit these points to memory and skip over the rest of hist posts as they are the only ones he'll ever be bringing up.

GWAR! - It has one weapon called "Storm Eagle Rockets" which can fire 4 times. It does NOT have 4 weapons called "Storm Eagle Rocket" which can fire once. The reason a WD doesn't nuke all the one shot weapons on a Valk or Raven is because they DO have multiple one shot weapons, which is not what the Manticore has (it has one four shot weapon). Other than the fact that this is true, this post is only here as a spacer for more of the free flowing bounty of Lord_Mortis' asshole.

Lord_Mortis - The entry says it has a rack that carries four rockets, not a rack that can fire four times or a Storm Eagle rocket launcher that can fire four times. I... uh.. these things seem like they're all the EXACT SAME DAMN THING! I don't see this being any different than a Vendetta that carries two missiles or a Stormraven that carries four. The rules say once the vehicle (the Manticore Rocket Launcher) has fired four times, then it is out of ammo.

I can see your point if it said the weapon was called a "Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher" that could only fire four times, but it specifically says it has four rockets and that once the MML (the vehicle) has fired four times, and not simply the weapon, then it is out of rockets. This brings us to the other main themes of every one of Lord_Mortis' posts: pedantic arguments and semantics. Enjoy!

GWAR! - You have quoted Fluff there. Actually, no The bit about a Rack of Four Rockets is Fluff, not rules. Look at the Army List, it clearly has ONE entry, Storm Eagle Rockets. If it were 4 weapons, it would say 4 Storm Eagle Rockets. Man, I feel like we're so close to seeing GWAR! hulk out here and actually start trolling. Fingers crossed. As it is, it's one Weapon with a Special Rule limiting it to firing 4 times. Or do I have to spend the time typing it all out and quoting it to prove it to you? Please don't.

Lord_Mortis - It is listed in the special rules called Limited Ammunition that says it carries 4 rockets and that you have to make a note each time a rocket is fired.

Chalk it up to bad writing. How convenient for you The Valkyrie entry doesn't say how many missiles it carries, but the Army list entry for it does. Same with the Stormraven. However, we know how many rockets the MML carries because it is spelled out in the special rules on page 54 telling us to keep track of how many rockets the MML has fired and once it has fired it's cargo of four it is out of ammo. The rules on page 54 also.... WOAH. Careful there, Lauby. You almost got sucked in The entire vehicle is the actual rocket launcher that carries 4 rockets that are called Storm Eagle rockets and each rocket can only be fired once. But just because the number of rockets isn't listed in the Army List doesn't mean that the number of rockets the vehicle carries isn't in the rules. Again there is a big difference between a "Storm Eagle Rocket Launcher" that can fire only four times and a a MML that can fire four Storm Eagle rockets. Not... really. Which is kind of the whole problem with your argument since all you've really got going for you is long blocks of text and a not very clever bit of spin control is I suppose they could have listed "4 Storm Eagle Rockets" Unfortunately for you, they didn't in the army list but maybe they thought that would be redundant since they already established in the rules how many it carried. But I'm not a mind reader.... But you are an idiot savant. Minus the savant part.

We will just have to disagree on this I guess. However, this is the internet so we'll be enforcing the 'two man enter, one man leave' clause.

hamsterwheel - Going to have to agree with Gwar. Every army list entry in the IG codex indicates under the Wargear section how many of each weapon the vehicles happen to have. If Cruddace made a point to type in the number or spell out how many in the Army list for every other entry but the Manticore then I imagine it would have been in the errata and thus fixed, since it's not, then I can only agree with Gwar that it's a single weapon because the Wargear section for the Manticore indicates that it's a single weapon. Dear Hamsterwheel: thank you for your interest in our company at this time. Unfortunately, Dick Move does not have an opening for a professional thread summarizer at this time. Good luck with your job search.

headrattle - Bad writing or not, the result is clear. The Manticore has one entry that says "Storm Eagle Rockets." Thus one weapon. The Valkyrie has an entry that says "2 hellstrike missiles." Thus two weapons. Dear Headrattle: thank you for your interest in our company at this time. Unfortunately, Dick Move does not have an opening for a professional thread summarizer at this time. Good luck with your job search.
GWAR! - Ah, I see. When you think it's bad writing, you can ignore the rules.
I was unaware of this! Standard trolling arriving on runway 1, request permission to land. over.

Crablezworth - I think it is bad writing. Check out the forgeworld apoc books. Do not do this. They clearly list 4 rockets rather than "storm eagle rockets". I agree that as it's written in the codex it is one weapon, little silly though. Yes, lets use the completely different Forgeworld rules as a basis for comparison. Do you like comparing apples to turds or do you honestly think Forgeworld is a pinnacle of editorial excellence?

Janthkin - And I'd love to use the FW Trygon's rules, instead of the inferior ones from the new Tyranid Codex, at least so far as the after-arrival tunnel is concerned. Dear Janthkin: Dick Move would like to thank you for your incredibly pertinent and not at all retarded contribution to this discussion.

GWAR! - It's also silly that Space Wolves aren't Toughness 11 with 2+ Feel No Pain.
I'll let you have your four WD results if you let me have my T11 SW. Deal? No deal. Unless I see half up front, me and Big Tony are walkin'.

The fact of the matter is, it's one weapon. End of Discussion. Sadly, no. We still have a whole page to go. Constant appeals to authority about how it's "Crap Writing" doesn't change it. This little dollop of angst was in response to Crabelzworth up there and is the exact point that the pretenses of logic and civility are dropped in this thread.

Orion_44 - But Gwar, most "discussions" here are propogated this way. "I want to read it or interpret it this way so thats RAW and you are silly" seems to be the rule of YMDC these days. Man, its hard to make fun of the guys who are right. Uh... you misspelled propagated! Burn. How the hell does Dethtron do it?

JoeTaco - yeah i have to agree w/ Gwar! What's up with people taking GWAR!'s side in this thread. Give in to your hate, people! it one weapon because its listed as one weapon. There really isn't left up to interpretation, under its wargear it lists: Storm Eagle Rockets, Heavy Bolter, Searchlight, Smoke Launchers; thusly it has 2 weapons, the hbolter and the rocket rack. Thanks for restating the argument, JoeTaco. It totally helps. I'm sure glad you're here to clean up this sticky wicket.

Norsehawk - If you destroy the rack, what are the rockets firing from? Lord_Mortis's ass. If Cruddace had added the word four in front of the 'storm eagle rockets' then there would be no problem. Whose side are you one, buddy?

Joetaco - if the rack was destroyed it couldn't fire the rockets. more importantly its not "4" storm eagle rockets; its 1 weapon, the storm eagle rocket which can be fired 4 times Thanks for that... no, fuck sarcasm. WHY THE HELL ARE STILL POSTING!? As far as I can tell its just an excuse to keep using the word 'rack'.

ChrisWWII - I have to agree with Gwar and the other 1 WD guys on this one. Again, when did GWAR! get popular? Is it his new Axe body wash? Even as a fluff player (which doesn't mean I ignore the rules, I just interpret them from a fluff perspective) it makes sense that on WD result would take out the whole launcher. I'm expecting a completely asinine 'real-life' scenario to be described and then subsequently used as a basis for rules.

Think of it this way. Here it comes. A Chaos Predator makes a hit, and the hit impacts on one of the Storm Eagles. It makes sense to assume that the detonation of the shell combined with any secondary explosions from the missile would either: a) take out the rest of the missile battery, or b) cause enough damage to the launcher system that the other missiles can't fire. It also makes sense that some kind of fail safe anti-explosion missile casing could be invo..... DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!!?

If you look at tabletop 40k as a simulation of a land battle in the setting which you should not do ...it makes more sense that one WD result would be necessary to detooth a Manticore than four. Aaaaand thank you Chris. I'm sure you think you're helping. But you're not. Fluff is never a good argument for rules - its completely made up and totally subjective. Also, this game involves a lot of shit that has never existed, ever, in recorded human history.

Lord_Mortis - And after those completely pointless interjections from the members of the Committee to Waste All Of Our Damn Time, we're back to the main event.
It is listed as having "Storm Eagle Rockets." Plural. How many does it have? Four per page 54. This weeks FNIF brought to you by the number 4 and the letter S.

Now a SM Predator has the option of taking "side sponsons with heavy bolters....lascannons..." (C:SM, C:SW, and C:BA) Sponsons being plural. Are you saying that because it doesn't specify exactly how many side sponsons a Predator may take, (in the same way it doesn't list how many storm eagle rockets there are) that both sponsons count as one weapon, and therefore a single weapon destroyed result will take out both sponsons? (And there apparently is no limit on the number of sponsons a Predator may have on the sides.) Notice that for Leman Russ battle tanks it says they may take a "pair of sponsons." Congratulations. Your dick must be able to touch your asshole because you just fucked yourself. You have introduced an argument with a gigantic logical hole in it that will be mercilessly used against you until you bow out.
Just checking to see if this is being consistently applied across all the 40K books. ("This" being that a single weapon destroyed result will take out all the storm eagle rockets as well as all the side sponsons on Predators or any other vehicles where a specific number is not listed in the army list.) At what point did consistency become another hallmark of GW editorial policy? Are you and Crablezworth from Bizarro World?

GWAR! - Except that you have Two Heavy Bolter Sponsons and ONE Weapon called Storm Eagle Rockets. Ooooh... swing and a miss. Lord_Mortis is now going to accuse you of not reading his post. Although he is really questioning your reading comprehension rather than your attention span and/or patience. Because, clearly, you're responding to his post adn not just making random replies. Wait...

Lord_Mortis - Did you read what I wrote? See what I mean? There is no specific number of sponsons listed. Just "side sponsons." Plural. So I could apparently have 2+ sponsons, which apparently count as a single weapon choice. Just like "rockets" are listed in the plural with no number in front of them. Would they also be mounted on a rack? heh heh.. rack.

The army list entry for LRBT That's 'lemon russ battle tank' for those of you who aren't into abbrevs. specifically says a "pair" of sponsons which means they have 2 seperate sponsons. No such "pair" is listed in any of the 5th edition SM books. Again, I would like to point out that you're really just setting yourself up for as the but of a joke by attempting to pursue the ol' "lunacy of your logic' path to victory

GWAR! -So You would let me have 95 heavy Bolters on my Predator? YES! Shit, I mean NO!

And they call me names... but not as of yet in this thread. Oddly enough.

It says side sponsons, how many sides does a Predator have? I dunno, but I'm sure we're about to find out
So, as I said before, you can have your 4 Weapons, If I can have 95 Heavy Bolters! I would not like to play that game - but I would watch. You wouldn't even know I'm there. Just the tell tale glow of my cigarette but in the shadowy corner.

ComputerGeek01 - So the questions seem to be: Do we count the Storm Eagle rockets as one weapon system or multiple weapons? If you count it as one then a single weapon destroyed that kills all of the missles but then it CAN be repaired by a tech priest, otherwise each missle is destroyed individually but they can't be repaired. Shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck up. By a wide margin, your post is the most worthless in the entire thread. And that's even with my space-aged knowledge of the future. Your parents must be proud that their little down syndrome sufferer can post on internet forums AND find his ass with both hands.

I would agree with Gwar! on this because I never thought of the missles themselves as being destroyed, just the launching mechanisms or targeting system and such. This is the same for the sponsoons, sponsoon season in India is rough I hear the weapon itself is fine but the vehicle is no longer capapble of using it for one reason or another. Why the fuck are you even bothering to jump in when your only 'contribution' is yet another useless summary? Is it for the typing practice?

Lord_Mortis - Notice there is no limit on those side sponsons. Again, the LRBT specifically says a "pair." Apparently you can model your Predators with as many sponsons as you can fit on the sides. Even the Baneblade lists "two sponsons...." and then gives the option of adding "two extra sponsons (for a total of two sponsons per side!)" And it also lists exactly how many lascannons are contained within each sponson. So yeah, according to C:SM, you could have as many sponsons as you could fit on the sides, packed with however many heavy bolters you could model into each sponson. But since all the sponsons are just one weapons choice, since it doesn't specify, then one weapon destroyed result would take out all the sponsons and whatever weapons they contained. This is the point where you've realized one of two things: 1) you can't win and change anybody's mind 2) that you've shit all over any credability you had with your wacky action sponson detour.

Oh, and technically a Predator has four sides (front side, right side, left side, back side). Just saying And with that you ride off into the sunset, never to be heard from again. Unfortunately, just because the only person who was seriously pursuing the opposing argument leaves, does not mean that the thread will end.

Oooh! Looks like I get to actually ignore some posts from Gorkamorka, Black Blow Fly and The Night Stalker. Thanks for agreeing with GWAR!, boys.

cosmic pixie - As much as it gauls me to say it, wait, what? admitting that GWAR! is right is has something to do with the ancient French peoples? it is 1 weapon system - the way to keep your rockets useful is to stay out of range, or just nuke the enemy on the first turn but, yeah, 1WD result gives you a brick.

Sliggoth - One thing being mentioned here that should be cleared up...the rack of rockets cant be destroyed. The rack isnt listed as a weapon anywhere, so there is no way to destroy the rack with a weapon destroyed result. Now if the rack were a vehicle upgrade that functioned as a weapon it might possibly be able to be destroyed, but its not a vehicle upgrade. Thanks for this. really. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

So the rack cannot be destroyed, the question becomes are the rockets one weapon or four. See, the thing is that we've ALREADY COVERED ALL OF THIS!

The rockets are listed on one line in the codex, but that doesnt help us since other things that we recognize as multiple weapons are also listed that same way on one line. Except that those other things very often have a number in front of them.

Part of the problem is also that the author seems to use the plural when talking about one rocket, since he seems to mix up the multiple warheads with the rocket itself.

It can be read either way, there are two quite reasonable ways to consider the rule here so it seems to be unclear as it is written. Again, why do people feel the need to summarise the thread? What possible good could it do other than trying to make yourself sound like a smart mother fucker?

Sliggoth thanks for signing your name to a post that has you listed as the author already. I was getting pretty confused about who wrote what and when and then you step in with this simple convention that really helped me understand the confusing nightmare that is basic web 2.0 technologies. You're really really really really smart. And interesting.

Sliggoth (again) - Thinking about it a bit more, there could be 3 ways to look at the manticore weapon destroyed result.

1) Destroy however many missiles the manticore has; altho this does run into the problem that if we treat the missiles as weapons to be destroyed then how do we decide to destroy multiple weapons (the missiles are indeed plural here) with one weapon destroyed result. You just do. Also, I don't understand your need to cover all of this made up minutia you've created in excruciating detail.

2) Destroy one missile per weapon destroyed result. This treats the manticore missiles as other rockets/ missiles, altho please stop misspelling this the wording on the manticore is different so this isnt clear at all.

3) The vehicle itself is called the manticore rocket launcher, and the rules talk about the vehicle itself firing the rockets...so the rockets are only ammunition and cant be chosen as a weapon destroyed result at all. This would treat the rockets radically different from other similar missiles in the game, altho Pro-tip from the academic world: when you're trying to be a pedantic show-ff, take some extra time and spell check your bullshit the deathstrike cannot be destroyed with a weapon destroyed result either. Imagine that, a completely different peice of equipemnt with its own detailed rules. Who'd have thunk it?

So its even more muddy than first thought. No its not. You're just an idiot who likes to hear the sound of his own gums flapping - metaphorically speaking, of course.

ChrisWWII - And we're back with our token fluff idiot. Lets see what gem he has for us this time. The Imperial Guard Codex lists the Storm Eagle rocket as the Manticore's weapon, and yes there are four rockets. However, it also lists the Hydra's weapon as the Hydra Autocannon. If you follow the logic that you need to pop each individual Storm Eagle rocket with a separate weapons destroyed result, it would also follow that you need to destroy each individual autocannon on a Hydra with a separate weapons destroyed result. And wrong. Thank you for proving people's conceptions that self declared fluff players don't know a god-damn thing about the rules of the game.

I personally take this as evidence that the RAW want the Manticore to have one weapon with limited ammunition. One weapon that can be destroyed with one weapon destroyed result. Huh, he just shifted from his story based campaign of a rules explanation to RAW. Holy shit. THIS GUY IS A BIG FAT PHONY! He doesn't love fluff at all.

GWAR! - No, it doesn't. Try reading the codex. GWAR!'s triumphant return! He shoots, he scores. Being able to call someone out with an actual page number is every rules-troll's dream.

Dave47 - So the troll is the guy confused by the Storm Eagle Rockets rule, and not the guy equating that confusion to T11 Space Wolves with FNP? Really? Strange but true. Though it seems that GWAR!'s sexifiation treatment is wearing off. Quick! Re-apply before people start hating you again!

I think that a neutral reading favors the notion that "Storm Eagle Rockets" are a single weapon system, but this isn't nearly as clear-cut as Gwar! claims, and the accusations that people who get the rule wrong are base cheaters is uncalled for. I have not seen these accusations. At all. What the fuck thread are you reading? Take my word for it, Dick Movers, these accusations do not exist. You can trust me, I'm an internet writer.

Sliggoth - And there still is the bsic problem that no one has addressed. The listing is rockets, plural. So if we take the weapon to actually be what is written, then it is more than one rocket. And the weapon destroyed result only destroys one weapon. I can't express enough how much I hate you and your particular brand of bullshit. Thankfully, nobody in the entire thread has bothered to acknowledge that you're participating. Probably because they're not particularly interested in watching your intellectual masturbation.

The entire vehicle is called "manticore rocket launcher", so the launcher itself is the entire vehicle...and thus far no one has suggested that a weapon destroyed rsult destroys the entire vehicle. This may be a clever ploy to get someone to actually respond to anything he's said. It doesn't work.

The only place that the word rack is used is under the limited ammunition rule, not under the the rockets rule at all. And its always the manticore rocket launcher (ie the vehicle) thats described as firing or launching the rockets. So there really is no launcher described as a weapon that could be destroyed, at least so far as the rules are concerned. Not only have you already covered this, but so have other people. I think I finally understand the term 'ad nasuem' on the visceral level I had always wanted.

So it isnt as clear cut as some would have us believe, we need to delev deeply into the fluff to come up with a launcher that can be destroyed to remove all rockets. No. No we don't. Fluff =/= rules The two models dont particularly help the situation, one model not really having a rack, the other having a rack/ turret. Which two models? Kate Moss and Kim Kardashian? Cause one of those doesn't have a rack. You know what, even if I misunderstood what ever flim-flam you were spinning, I choose my examples over yours. PS: You are a fucktard.

JoeTaco - for the millionth time Gwar! is right, well, its not really the millionth time. Only considering your contributions (such as they are), this would be the third time looking at the wargear it has 4 pieces of wargear, 2 weapons "storm eagle rockets" and "heavy bolter" and smoke launcher and searchlight.
2 weapons; so when you receive a weapon destoyed result you may either destroy the storm eagle rockets or the the heavy bolter. Ok, ok, it can be the millionth time. BUT you have to promise to back fill the missing 999,997 times.
certain people believe that there are (4) storm eagle rockets, but what do they cite? nothing. the confusion arises from the special ability "limited ammunition" which states " once the manticore rocket launcher has fired 4 times it has run out of ammunition. it cannot be rearmed and hence cannot be fired again during the same game."
arguing that the storm eagle rockets are 4 weapons because they can be fired 4 times per game is like arguing that a revolver is 6 weapons because it has six shots, quite absurd... So is this simile. On the other hand, GW really needs to publish a new real-life guns FAQ to clear this new pickle up.

so in summation the manticores weapons are "storm eagle rockets" (a weapon which because of its special rule can only be fired 4 times per game) and a heavy bolter. Wait, why should we listen to you? You don't even have 400 posts yet. Put GWAR! back on!

The Night Stalker - I asked last Sunday at my FLGS and was told that the rockets are 4 seperate weapons, I am confused now :( I feel your pain, buddy - free will and rational thought are hard. I hope someone tells us what to do soon and makes our decisions for us. In other news, I'm really hungry but I'm unclear on how waffles work. If I have 4 waffles is it one breakfast or four? Also, why did you think it would be a good idea to take a well known serial killers nick name for your forum ID?
And at this point a few other people stumble in to beat on this dead horse and then the thread ends. Special props for Lt. Coldfire for having the worst screen name in the whole mess.

I don't know what you all have learned, but I'm pretty sure that some vehicle or another has four missiles of some kind. I've also learned that Dethtron must be some kind of futuristic comedy robot if it took him 17 FNIFs to finally crack. ~16, TKE wrote a pretty good one in the early days.


Lauby said...

I misspelled butt at least twice. D'oh.

Chumbalaya said...

A for effort Lauby.

Dakka makes me sadface.

Muffin said...

Of course live action Star Wars porn exists. How could it not? Keep up your noble search Good Sir.

Anonymous said...

Lauby: Not bad dude. Your FNIF was Obi-Wan to Dethtron's usual Mace Windu...

Dethtron: Keeping up with the Star Wars this is for you...Lightsabers and Booty

Dethtron said...

a mother-fuckin' shark ate me

SandWyrm said...

I think you need to take some Crystal Meth before you start snowballing. At least I'm pretty sure that's how Dethtron keeps his panties knotted tight enough to insult everyone. :)

Brent said...

Ha! It was great stuff - a worthy scab until Dethtron shakes out the sand and reignites his desire to insult... well, everybody.

Like Sandwyrm said, (no, not, "I hate to be called Sandy..." the other thing) put a knot in your panties and get to work on next week's FNF.

Hopefully you guys will find one where GWAR! doesn't win hands down.


DFM said...

bsic problems are always the hardest to solve...

@dethy - Did it have a brain the size of a flathead V8m engine?

Tinkling Koala said...

Damn, there's no option to vote for Lauby. You would've gotten mine for this little gem while snowmobiling Sliggoth...

"Pro-tip from the academic world: when you're trying to be a pedantic show-ff, take some extra time and spell check your bullshit"


Good FNIF,these always make me week and this no different.

Tinkling Koala said...

Damn I'm good. This whole spelling correction thing is like an MC Escher painting made on a canvas of hypocrasy. :p

Dethtron said...

I caught that when I was editing too and assumed that it was deliberate so I left it in. I do it on purpose a lot as well. geez...

Muffin said...

^^ You mean hypocrisy? :p

The_King_Elessar said...

As a Registered Guest FNIF-er, welcome to the club, good job. It really isn't as easy as Dethtron makes it look, is it? :/

But, you succeeded in making me rage about idiocy on the internet, and that's a success in my book.

@Sandwyrm - do you hate to be called Sandy? lol

Phalanx said...


The manticore's rack still isn't nearly as good as Skarre's rack in warmachine. She can knock you down with her great rack.

The_King_Elessar said...

Steve Jacobs today announced a series of Apple Inc Breast Implants. These "i-Rack"s will be available in most private clinics across the US, at a "reasonable and competitive" price.

ovent: Description of something that was cooked in the oven - eg, "That quiche was ovent for half an hour."

Gx1080 said...

People summarize threads to deflect the classical "you didn't read what I wrote", FYI.

Although GWAR! doesn't seem like the guy that cried himself to sleep while listining to Linkin Park because GW told him to fuck off in their FAQ.

Thank you. Now go back to the corner.

Takamine said...

My favorite part of this post (other than all that rack thinking I was doing) was the fact that four breakfasts can be made of waffles. I think this statement wins the FNIF

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one that laughed when SandWyrm said snowballing...


and not snowmobiling???

Nice one Lauby!