PDA

View Full Version : How do Eldar Missile Launcher work?



stahly
13-08-2006, 18:14
This may sound silly, but looking at an Eldar Missile launcher model, I don't get where actually the missiles come out.
Do they come out of the vents? But I think these vents are for ventilation, releasing smoke etc.
Or becomes the whole cone end launched? But then the ammo suppliers would be far too small.

I hope somebody can enlighten me.

Kamin_Majere
13-08-2006, 18:21
I suppose the "they just do" answer isnt what your looking for huh?

I think i read once that the "vents" are indeed the rocket launching points. Eldar use micro rockets that end result impact has the same punch as the imperial counterparts. I might be mistaking this with something i read about the reaper launcher so dont take it at face value

Baneboss
13-08-2006, 18:41
http://img125.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00006tl7.jpg
http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00005vv9.jpg

Hope this helps but I suppose it will make matters worse.

Kegluneq
13-08-2006, 22:40
The 'vents' almost certainly are where the missiles come from - the design overall looks similar to the missile launcher pods you see on helicoptors and other aircraft.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 03:32
Maybe this article (http://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg3.htm) will shed some light on the matter.

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 03:41
Maybe this article (http://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg3.htm) will shed some light on the matter.

Yea but the Eldar missile launcher isn't a launcher of missiles as we know them: it means missiles in the old term, as in high-velocity projectile that soars through the air into its target. It fires out the vents.

Also that article is kinda misleading for calling the RPG a Rocket Propelled Grenade. RPG means Ruchnoy Protivotkoviy Granamet or something similar to that (I don't know the romanticized version), meaning Handheald Anti-Tank Grenade-Launcher.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 04:01
Yea but the Eldar missile launcher isn't a launcher of missiles as we know them: it means missiles in the old term, as in high-velocity projectile that soars through the air into its target. It fires out the vents. Poppycock. The Eldar missile launcher fires missiles (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missile). The "vents" that you see on both the Eldar Missile Launcher and the RPG-7 are not part of the launch mechanism. They are part of the missile that each device launches.

Also that article is kinda misleading for calling the RPG a Rocket Propelled Grenade. RPG means Ruchnoy Protivotkoviy Granamet or something similar to that (I don't know the romanticized version), meaning Handheald Anti-Tank Grenade-Launcher. It may astonish you to learn that the article mentions that fact (http://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg.htm) in a conveniently inset yellow box labelled "What's in a Name?".

sneb
14-08-2006, 04:17
The design and the rules for the eml(they're more effect against stormtroopers than their imperial counterparts) suggest that it would fire some energy based projectile either concetrated to a certan point (krak) or dispersed(plasma)

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 04:28
How do the design and rules for the Eldar Missile Launcher suggest that?

Wraithbored
14-08-2006, 04:33
According to 2nd ed fluff the Eldar missile launcher fires a volley of small missiles that bassically saturate the target. And yes the small vents do fire the tiny missiles. Take a look in your 2nd ed Eldar codex.

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 04:40
Poppycock. The Eldar missile launcher fires missiles (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missile). The "vents" that you see on both the Eldar Missile Launcher and the RPG-7 are not part of the launch mechanism. They are part of the missile that each device launches.
It may astonish you to learn that the article mentions that fact (http://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg.htm) in a conveniently inset yellow box labelled "What's in a Name?".

I realize vents on an RPG don't fire mini-missiles, lol. However, the ones on Eldar missile launchers do. Reaper launchers and missiles launchers are explained as launching a volley of missiles that cover the target. I don't know how they fire a volley of pineapple shaped missiles when it appears only one could fit in the launcher at a time, as you propose.


Also, you linked to another article. I'm not going to search through multiple articles to find out that they announced something missing in a different one.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 04:54
I don't know how they fire a volley of pineapple shaped missiles when it appears only one could fit in the launcher at a time, as you propose. Easy, they reload between shots.

Also, you linked to another article. I'm not going to search through multiple articles to find out that they announced something missing in a different one. Same article, different pages. As for searching different pages of the same article, you could have just used the table of contents provided at the top of each page. Hard work, I know.

sigur
14-08-2006, 05:00
Well, this isn't star trek so we don't need to know how the weapons and everything works. Additionally, it's Eldar wargear so us humble humans will never know how it works.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 05:03
You're right, how silly of us to discuss such nonsense on a discussion board devoted to such nonsense. Almost as silly as grown men playing with toy soldiers.

sigur
14-08-2006, 05:04
Aw, great, a "toy soldiers" comment again. All I'm saying is that we don't know and we never will.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 05:07
Except that we do know. It's a missile launcher. It launches missiles with a variety of warheads.

Malphax
14-08-2006, 05:08
OMGZORZ a missile launcher that *gasp* launches MISSILES!?!?!?

Say it ain't so.




Wait, what was this thread about again?

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 05:12
The topic seems pretty clear to me.
This may sound silly, but looking at an Eldar Missile launcher model, I don't get where actually the missiles come out.
Do they come out of the vents? But I think these vents are for ventilation, releasing smoke etc.
Or becomes the whole cone end launched? But then the ammo suppliers would be far too small.

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 07:06
The topic seems pretty clear to me.

Howdy hell would you look at this (http://img125.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00006tl7.jpg)

If the Eldar can make a projectile as deadly as a Bolter in monomolecular form, contain the energy of THE WARP inside a small glowsphere shot of a D-cannon, why would they have missiles of the similar size and power of the Imperium's? Because they don't. Those vents fire micro-missiles and the fluff backs me on this

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 08:54
Howdy hell would you look at this (http://img125.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00006tl7.jpg) So? You might as well post images showing spent shell casings being ejected from a bolter support the contention that they do not fire caseless ammunition.

If the Eldar can make a projectile as deadly as a Bolter in monomolecular form, contain the energy of THE WARP inside a small glowsphere shot of a D-cannon, why would they have missiles of the similar size and power of the Imperium's? Or, put another way, if scientists can split the atom and genetically modify organisms, why do I have a spoon of similar size and power to an ancient Greek spoon?

Maybe such missile launchers are a cheap, flexible, and cost-effective alternative to other heavy weapons. In the case of the Dark Reapers, the use of the smaller reaper launcher is obviously a religious choice, rather than an economic or military one. The fact that the Eldar use them says little about their design though, especially since the Eldar are fictional.

Given that the Eldar are fictional, we can be pretty sure that their artefacts are modelled on equivalent human ones. So I find it bizarre that you could look at a model designed to be an Eldar equivalent to an RPG, a hold-over from the days of Rogue Trader, and imagine that it fired mini-missiles from the vents on the missile that it launches.

Because they don't. Those vents fire micro-missiles and the fluff backs me on this If the fluff backs you on this then surely you can cite page and passage of the background materials detailing the operation of the Eldar Missile Launcher. Y'know, rather than depending on screen-caps from non-canonical sources, or fallacious arguments.

salamandercaptain
14-08-2006, 11:18
New Codex Eldar update:

Dark reapers can come with anti-troll warheads at +5pts

Wraithbored
14-08-2006, 13:09
If the fluff backs you on this then surely you can cite page and passage of the background materials detailing the operation of the Eldar Missile Launcher. Y'know, rather than depending on screen-caps from non-canonical sources, or fallacious arguments.

No problem: Eldar codex, page 16 Dark Reaper unit description on the left hand side, plus there is a lovely lovely pic that shows dark reapers firing "minimissile". And the missile launcher has a extremely similar shape, it is safe to assume that they fire in the same manner.

Shibboleth
14-08-2006, 16:33
Anybody remember Space Crusade?
That was Rogue Trader Era when every race had every other races weapons...

The Space Marines, and the old Chaos Dreadnoughts both had missile launchers which had similar shaped heads to the Dark Reaper missile launcher (in fact I've always thought of the Dark Reaper launcher as the last survivor of those days), but they also had an ammo supply of mini missiles, in a sickle shaped feeder, which obviously fired out of the launchers vents, just like modern military helicopter style.

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 18:59
No problem: Eldar codex, page 16 Dark Reaper unit description on the left hand side, plus there is a lovely lovely pic that shows dark reapers firing "minimissile". And the missile launcher has a extremely similar shape, it is safe to assume that they fire in the same manner.

That and the Eldar entry in the 3rd Edition Rulebook :)

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 20:01
Wraithbored:

As I pointed out in post #20, "You might as well post images showing spent shell casings being ejected from a bolter support the contention that they do not fire caseless ammunition."

Malphax
14-08-2006, 20:09
After looking at the relevant Codex picture and the Dark Reaper model, it's quite clear it fires mini-missiles from the "vents." Nurglitch's shell casing comparison is flawed. Those aren't shell casings, it's a muzzle flash. If you can come up with a convincing reason that both a) a missile can pass through an aperture smaller than the missile itself and b) muzzle flash does not indicate firing action, then I'm all ears.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 20:50
A muzzle flash does indicate a firing action, in an undoctored photograph. Illustrations of fictional weapons are another matter.

As for a missile passing through an aperture smaller than it, it should be obvious that this is irrelevant to whether a weapon can fire that missile. The missile fired by real RPGs do not pass through the launch mechanism, for example, and only the base-charge and rocket section of the missile are small enough to fix inside the launching mechanism.

Malphax
14-08-2006, 20:59
A muzzle flash does indicate a firing action, in an undoctored photograph. Illustrations of fictional weapons are another matter.

You don't get to pick and choose your fluff just because of what you want to believe. Have you even looked at the picture?


As for a missile passing through an aperture smaller than it, it should be obvious that this is irrelevant to whether a weapon can fire that missile. The missile fired by real RPGs do not pass through the launch mechanism, for example, and only the base-charge and rocket section of the missile are small enough to fix inside the launching mechanism.

RPGs are mounted externally. There are no externally mounted missiles on a Reaper Launcher or Eldar Missile Launcher. The Codex picture and game screenshots show an identical firing mechanism.

*sigh*

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 21:13
You don't get to pick and choose your fluff just because of what you want to believe. Have you even looked at the picture? I'm not picking and choosing. I'm pointing out that the fluff is often inconsistent and therefore no proof of how any particular weapon so portrayed may actually work.

PariahMagnus
14-08-2006, 21:15
http://img125.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00006tl7.jpg
http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relic00005vv9.jpg

Hope this helps but I suppose it will make matters worse.

Offtopic, but how do you zoom that far? :confused:

Indigo
14-08-2006, 21:19
The RPG projectile like pod is both ammunition storage and the actual launching tubes. This was actually shown in WD way back whent he first Dark Reaper models were released. Just like marines would replace thier magazines after several shots, I'd expect reapers would replace the "ammo pod". the remainder of the launcher is stabilization, targeting, power, etc.

PariahMagnus
14-08-2006, 21:20
Offtopic, but how do you zoom that far? :confused:

... and does it only work on replay?

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 21:50
Offtopic, but how do you zoom that far? :confused:

do you have a mouse wheel?



Also, Nurglitch, notice its called Eldar Missile Launcher, not Eldar RPG-7. Just because it looks like an RPG-7 doesn't mean it is.

Hell, if drawing real-world comparisons makes one right, then the Eldar Missile Launcher looks like Soviet-type rocket pods that are usually mounted on helicopters. There :rolleyes:

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 22:10
Outlaw289:

At no point have I argued that because the Eldar Missile Launcher looks like the RPG-7, that it is an RPG-7. I have argued that the resemblance is such that they obviously work in a similar manner.

Since you disagree that they are so similar, perhaps you can explain why the Eldar Missile Launcher looks more like a rocket-pod than an rpg.

Kegluneq
14-08-2006, 22:22
Because the vents on the Eldar rocket launcher are clearly that - vents. The vent-like things on an RPG-7 only look superficially like vents.

Nurglitch
14-08-2006, 22:22
How are they "clearly" vents?

chosen_of_khaine
14-08-2006, 22:23
Offtopic, but how do you zoom that far? :confused:

can you trust how daw represents gw stuff though ? =s

Kegluneq
14-08-2006, 22:25
Because you look at them and see holes rather than the ribs of a RPG-7? I don't have an eldar codex to hand so I couldn't direct you to particular references, but I've always seen them as being mini-missile pods.

[SD] Bob Plisskin
14-08-2006, 23:23
I have argued that the resemblance is such that they obviously work in a similar manner.

Why obviously? A power sword looks like a normal sword in Real Life but doesn't work the same way fluff-wise.

it's fictional, nothing is an obvious conclusion, especially with Eldar fluff...

Personally I like to believe in mini missiles because it would look cooler...

Baneboss
14-08-2006, 23:41
Offtopic, but how do you zoom that far? :confused:

I dont know if you can do this on keyboard. You should buy a mouse with this "wheel" thing. This can be done in game.


can you trust how daw represents gw stuff though ? =s

TBH no, we shouldnt. Every other game in 40k environment will represent it differently (look at Rites of War for comparision). However if such representation is approved by GW then we can say its the most accurate at the moment.

Outlaw289
14-08-2006, 23:53
If you dont have the mouse wheel hold Alt and use the arrow keys, I think that works

Or consult the manual :cheese:

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 01:31
Wraithbored:

As I pointed out in post #20, "You might as well post images showing spent shell casings being ejected from a bolter support the contention that they do not fire caseless ammunition."

Video game firing modes and stuff = NOT cannon

While codeci ARE cannon simple as that. And also there is NO OTHER in codex or rulebook drawing of dark reapers firing. So it's quite safe to assume that what I have stated and provided quotes and proof. And is it's as conclusive and secure as it can be in a fictional game with toy soldiers.

Nurglitch
15-08-2006, 02:34
Bob Plisskin]Why obviously? A power sword looks like a normal sword in Real Life but doesn't work the same way fluff-wise. The term "obviously" can be applied to any inference whether that inference is about something real or some mere representation.

I say "obviously" because the artefact in question was originally a generic type of weapon given a coat of Eldar flavour and fashion during the Rogue Trader era. The evolution of the concept aside, I could say "obviously" because we could put the picture of an Eldar Missile Launcher beside an actual RPG and figure out how much fancy Eldar-esque detailing would make the artifact share the image of that picture.

Now I can't say that I've ever seen a "power sword" in this "Real Life" of which you speak, but I can say that canon materials provided by GW suggest that power weapons do not look like normal swords, on account of the unusual colour, glow emitted by the weapon's blade, and the massive electrical discharge from the blade when it impacts something bigger than dust. I suggest that we could not figure out how to make a sword that looked as if it did all that, and that no amount of epoxy, sanding, furniture, and paint could turn a regular sword into a power sword.

While codeci ARE cannon simple as that. And also there is NO OTHER in codex or rulebook drawing of dark reapers firing. So it's quite safe to assume that what I have stated and provided quotes and proof. And is it's as conclusive and secure as it can be in a fictional game with toy soldiers. Yes, the codicies are canon. Yet they often contain inconsistent information as I have pointed out so we cannot merely cite canon as proof of any particular position. So while you may believe it is safe to assume that what you have provided counts as some sort of proof, it turns out that such a safe bet is wrong.

Since a de re standard of proof is not available, given that there is no example of the Eldar Missile Launcher to which canon materials refer, then that leaves us with the task of determining which interpretation of the canon materials is better.

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 02:41
Yes, the codicies are canon. Yet they often contain inconsistent information as I have pointed out so we cannot merely cite canon as proof of any particular position. So while you may believe it is safe to assume that what you have provided counts as some sort of proof, it turns out that such a safe bet is wrong.

Since a de re standard of proof is not available, given that there is no example of the Eldar Missile Launcher to which canon materials refer, then that leaves us with the task of determining which interpretation of the canon materials is better.
:eyebrows: So you quote you can't yourself determine what is best for YOU and yet you try to force everyone to take your viewpoint, can't you just accept that I see the eldar missile launcher as it is portrayed in the codeci and rulebook(and as for the Eldar Missile launcher and reaper launcher I've yet to see it stated somewhere that the big cone on the end is the missile), and not your "prefered" view? Why can't you just leave it at that? You hound some issues way to much.

Nurglitch
15-08-2006, 03:07
Yes Wraithbored, every night I swoop down from my mountain lair to force my views on the unsuspecting populace...

Note well that I've already determined that Eldar Missile Launchers should be interpreted as RPGs. Much like I have determined that 2+2=4. It's not the sort of thing that silly crap like "personal interpretations" pertain to.

So while its nice that you interpret the canon in your own idiosyncratic way, and I understand why you might do so (having also thought that the Eldar Missile Launcher fired mini-missiles back in the day), but it's ultimately incorrect.

The fact that it is incorrect will only be realized when you attempt to reason why the canon material you cite is evidence and other canon is not. That is because you cannot provide a sound argument for why we should suppose the pictures are accurate and should be correctly interpreted as representing how Eldar Missile Launchers fire missiles.

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 03:10
Yes Wraithbored, every night I swoop down from my mountain lair to force my views on the unsuspecting populace...

Note well that I've already determined that Eldar Missile Launchers should be interpreted as RPGs. Much like I have determined that 2+2=4. It's not the sort of thing that silly crap like "personal interpretations" pertain to.

So while its nice that you interpret the canon in your own idiosyncratic way, and I understand why you might do so (having also thought that the Eldar Missile Launcher fired mini-missiles back in the day), but it's ultimately incorrect.

The fact that it is incorrect will only be realized when you attempt to reason why the canon material you cite is evidence and other canon is not. That is because you cannot provide a sound argument for why we should suppose the pictures are accurate and should be correctly interpreted as representing how Eldar Missile Launchers fire missiles.
You quote your view, yet you fail yourself to show us your so called canon
. It's YOUR turn to post pictures and show us the books where it says different. And oh god forbid I should disagree with what YOU "DETERMINED" is best for us all!What you posted in your article is modern day human weaponry, however 40k is a fantasy setting where *gasp* unusual and different is the order of the day. The codex fluf description states that the reaper launcher fire miniature missiles at the target, and by your interpretation that nozzle is the missile then I fail to see how that missile can be called "mini", it's quite big and imposing acctually.

And quite frankly your caustic and "I know best" replies are tiresome at best.

Nurglitch
15-08-2006, 03:18
What, my replies pale beside your witty and insightful posts? Touche. Ah well, so long as you find my replies as tiresome as I find yours...

But I don't mind if you disagree with me. After all, you aren't detemining the right answer for yourself. Dialogue is necessary.

Speaking of dialogue, I've already given my view: the Eldar Missile Launcher resembles an RPG-7, and resembles it closely enough that we can ignore pictures that depict it firing missiles from the vents on its warhead much like we ignore pictures of bolters ejecting spent shell casings, as artistic hyperbole.

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 03:21
Speaking of dialogue, I've already given my view: the Eldar Missile Launcher resembles an RPG-7, and resembles it closely enough that we can ignore pictures that depict it firing missiles from the vents on its warhead much like we ignore pictures of bolters ejecting spent shell casings, as artistic hyperbole.

So your reasoning is bassicaly if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it probably is a duck?

And I determined my reasoning quite well if you'd care to read my posts and the citations from where I got the fluff from. But your replies boil down to *nyah nyah nyah* I can't hear you! *nyah nyah nyah*.

Asuril
15-08-2006, 03:23
Wraithbored, just give up. Nurglitch is always right, didn't you read his thread on how 'Nids are really Moties from A Mote in God's Eyes?

It doesn't matter what the Codex says. Eldar use RPGs. It doesn't really matter that his so called 'missile' is physically attached to the rest of the launcher. They just propel the whole damn weapon at the enemy.

So sorry Wraith, wrong wrong wrong.

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 03:25
Wraithbored, just give up. Nurglitch is always right, didn't you read his thread on how 'Nids are really Moties from A Mote in God's Eyes?

It doesn't matter what the Codex says. Eldar use RPGs. It doesn't really matter that his so called 'missile' is physically attached to the rest of the launcher. They just propel the whole damn weapon at the enemy.

So sorry Wraith, wrong wrong wrong.

My exceptional bad I really did miss that! :D

Ardathair
15-08-2006, 03:28
Posted by Nurglitch:
So while its nice that you interpret the canon in your own idiosyncratic way, and I understand why you might do so (having also thought that the Eldar Missile Launcher fired mini-missiles back in the day), but it's ultimately incorrect.

The fact that it is incorrect will only be realized when you attempt to reason why the canon material you cite is evidence and other canon is not. That is because you cannot provide a sound argument for why we should suppose the pictures are accurate and should be correctly interpreted as representing how Eldar Missile Launchers fire missiles.

As you are the first person I have seen insist, or even claim, that the whole nose cone launches, I would have to consider you the one who is idiosyncratic. Saying that someone wrong because in your opinion the eml looks more like an RPG than any of the miriad rocket launcher pods is a bit arrogant and self centered. OK in your opinion it looks more like an RPG, but many others see it more like a rocket pod.

Your whole arguement so far is that it looks like an RPG-7 to you. Since that is obviously your only basis for your opinion I would disagree with you. Do you have anything else to support your point of view other than a superficial resemblance between a Sci-Fi weapon and a modern day one? If not get off your high horse and stop trying to tell others they are wrong just because you have a different opinion.

[SD] Bob Plisskin
15-08-2006, 03:45
I think EMLs fire small cats because cats say meow and that sounds like a missile firing - meeeeeooooooowww.

prove me wrong....

- my point is everyone has different opinions, deal with it. You can either back up your viewpoint with evidence or sit there and say 'no you're wrong, I'm right' one's a discussion, one makes you look self righteous and is never going to have people agreeing with you.

Wraithbored
15-08-2006, 03:50
Bob Plisskin;870817']I think EMLs fire small cats because cats say meow and that sounds like a missile firing - meeeeeooooooowww.

prove me wrong....

- my point is everyone has different opinions, deal with it. You can either back up your viewpoint with evidence or sit there and say 'no you're wrong, I'm right' one's a discussion, one makes you look self righteous and is never going to have people agreeing with you.

I tottaly agree with you, I don't mind people having a different view from mine, admitedly I do argue but only after someone either insults me, accuses me of being something without proof, or constantly knocking my oppinion without providing a valid counterpoint(as valid as it can be with fictional weaponry).

And as for your cat viewpoint I think they are puppies not cats you see the doppler effect *uninteligeble technobable that makes as much sense as heating soup with liquid nitrogen*

Nurglitch
15-08-2006, 04:01
So your reasoning is bassicaly if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it probably is a duck? No, that would be stupid. Try again. Here's a hint, it's somewhere in post #47

And I determined my reasoning quite well if you'd care to read my posts and the citations from where I got the fluff from. But your replies boil down to *nyah nyah nyah* I can't hear you! *nyah nyah nyah*. Then you should check your work, and perhaps pull your head from betwixt your flabby buttocks while you're at it. I've pointed out that you need to justify your citations and make an argument for why they support your position, but you seem unable to read my posts let alone reply to them.

Wraithbored, just give up. Nurglitch is always right, didn't you read his thread on how 'Nids are really Moties from A Mote in God's Eyes? It certainly would be convenient if I was always right. Speaking of being right, it's awfully douche-baggish of you to misrepresent what I was doing in that thread. But don't let facts get in the way of your trolling though.

As you are the first person I have seen insist, or even claim, that the whole nose cone launches, I would have to consider you the one who is idiosyncratic. No, you would only have to consider that if I was the only person that could make such a claim or inference.

Saying that someone wrong because in your opinion the eml looks more like an RPG than any of the miriad rocket launcher pods is a bit arrogant and self centered. Yes, it would be terribly arrogant and self-centered to just suppose my opinion was the truth. So instead I argued that the opinion I hold is preferable. As arguments go it's slightly more complicated than that, though just enough to make it a proper argument rather than just an assertion of taste or opinion. I argued that the Eldar Missile Launcher is significantly similar to the RPG-7. This significant similarity can be seen in the original Eldar Missile Launcher models, and follows through to the present.

Now, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm simply saying: "Well, it looks like an RPG to me." But I'm saying that we can make a functional RPG that looks like an Eldar Missile Launcher. That is to say we can make an artefact that looks and does what the Eldar Missile Launcher is supposed to do.

Note that I have used the term "significant" and it needs unpacking. "Significantly similar" is a phrase used to denote when a degree of similarity exists between two things such that they are the same for a particular purpose. It's often used to define how a network of family resemblance concepts interact.

To go about checking whether something is significantly similar to another thing, or to see if a picture is significantly similar to an artefact, take both objects and list their properties a column apiece. You will have two functional descriptions, lists of objects and relations that will provide blue-prints for reconstructing those artefacts using different materials and reproducing those pictures using different perspectives. A relation of significant similarity will exist where one artefact may be used as another, or used to represent another. Hence my comments about building a prop Eldar Missile Launcher using a lick of paint and a spare RPG-7 from your bitz-box.

It may also amuse you to do this with a pipe and a picture of a pipe.

Malphax
15-08-2006, 04:13
Nurglitch, your reasoning seems as thus.

A man robs a small grocery store on a store corner, and makes his escape. One eyewitness says that he drove off in a dark blue car, another eyewitness says that no, it was in fact a dark green car. Therefore, since the information is contradictory, the grocery store was actually robbed by Cthulhu and Elvis working together, and they escaped on a tandem bicycle. Then you sanctimoniously defy anyone to come up with evidence to the contrary, as if your view was supported in any way by what actually happened.

Also, your ad hominems get extremely old extremely quickly. Define "ad nauseam."

Asuril
15-08-2006, 04:14
It certainly would be convenient if I was always right. Speaking of being right, it's awfully douche-baggish of you to misrepresent what I was doing in that thread. But don't let facts get in the way of your trolling though.


Oh, yeah, don't you worry. So long as my trolling still manages to remain more civil than one of your hoity-toity posts, nothing, facts or otherwise, will keep me from posting them.

And, Sir Perfect, you forgot to address my simple point that proves your entire theory wrong. That's "Wrong", as in "You lose". Have a look at the miniatures, that bit that you're pretending is a missile that detaches and hits things is physically attached to the rest of the weapon. Look at it.

And on a more personal note, you seem to be desperately clinging to the Rogue Trader game of days long past. Maybe you should just stick to forums that follow that edition, rather than plaguing 40k forums with all of your insecurities.

Seriously.

Nurglitch
15-08-2006, 04:33
Melphax:

Nope, that's what we might call a "straw man". I suggest that you try to understand my argument first, so we can talk about it instead of some bizarre misrepresentation that you're trying to pass off as my argument. Such underhandedness does not become you, and becomes tiresome to the point of nausea.

Asuril:

When you say it like that, it warms my heart that such a gentleman would regard me so. But back on topic: This (http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=Individual&code=99060104072&orignav=300931&ParentID=210729&GameNav=10&ItemNav=301994) attachment that you suggest physically connects the missile with the launcher seems to be equally unattached unless we suppose that the models are replicas of the actual weapons rather than images of them. Care to try again, like an adult this time?

Captain Brown
16-08-2006, 16:42
This thread has been closed. There have been multiple warnings issued to three members for the disgraceful conduct carried out during the discussion.

Please learn not to let your disagreements escalate to this level of posting.

Captain Brown
WarSeer Inquisition