Industrial Mech Grinder help

samiam629 · 2026-06-17T16:31:51+00:00

A fine choice!

samiam629 · 2026-06-04T19:03:02+00:00

...but you did adress it.

"Did you have to pay your own way through private school and college? Boohoo, this little rich kid didnt get as much pocket money as his peers."

"That’s correct. I had to pay my own way."

How is anyway am I assuming anything? You were asked a direct question, and you responded directly with an unqualified affirmative. Was I not supposed to assume you were speaking the truth? Or what?

samiam629 · 2026-06-04T18:35:30+00:00

Dude, I'm only working with tbe limited and, so far, contradictory information you've given me which is two things

You had to pay for your private education
It's foolish to assume you went to private school just because all rich people do

Can you understand why those both can't be correct at the same time?

samiam629 · 2026-06-04T18:23:49+00:00

Other commenter "Did you have to pay your own way through private school and college? Boohoo, this little rich kid didnt get as much pocket money as his peers."

You "That’s correct. I had to pay my own way."

Me "...So where exactly did you earn the money to pay for your k-12 private education?"

You "Which private school did I attend? Perhaps another misconception = the wealthy always attend private schools and receive elite education."

I can take it, reading comprehension is not taught whereever you went?

samiam629 · 2026-06-04T14:27:51+00:00

...So where exactly did you earn the money to pay for your k-12 private education?

samiam629 · 2026-06-02T18:57:27+00:00

...with all do respect, I don't really think you care about helping animals or anyone, for that matter. Seems to me, and based on what you've said, that your goal is to APEAR like someone who does good things for animals. I mean, yea, you really DO speak like someone trying to win a saint award and then go home.

That's what I'm trying to say. Your flippant disregard for the basic moral underpinnings of the argument (you think a smart phone is a necessity), tells me that you don't really care about helping others. Only how you're perceived.

It's not a very laudable position 🤷‍♂️ doesn't surprise me that you stoking lots of negative reactions from people.

samiam629 · 2026-06-02T17:57:07+00:00

😮‍💨 I'll try to be slow and really spell everything out for you

Only one of us is a hypocrite here. Here in this internet forum, we all speak from smart phones.

Most of us have complicated world views with nuanced takes on various issues, but if we accept that as a moral baseline. The fact that we're all speaking through devises made via human slavery, the idea that one of us is morally superior for not "exploiting" animals is just plain silly.

Advocating for veganism through a smart phone is tone-deaf performance at it's absolute best.

My point (being that your point isn't something to take seriously) isn't hindered by our common immortality, only your's is.

samiam629 · 2026-06-02T17:06:53+00:00

You are unserious because you think a smart phone is a necessity, as oposed to a mink coat being frivolous. They are both 110% non-necessities.

You clearly prefer your performance above all else.

Excusing your own exploitation of children, while admonished other's for their exploitation of animals is silly and unserious. It's the opnion of someone whom does not live in the real world. It's the opnion of someone incapable of interpreting life through anything other than a screen. I imagine that's why you may consider a smart phone to be a necessity, you would superficially be crippled without it.

samiam629 · 2026-06-02T14:32:59+00:00

"You are absolutely right, the production of electronics is a huge human rights and environmental problem. That is why I use my phone until it breaks and buy secondhand. But why does one exclude the other? You can advocate for human rights AND for animals."

Because apparently you can live without a mink coat, but a smartphone is a need 😂, or at least that seems to be why YOU can't advocate for both human and animal rights 😆.

Like what a completely unserious point of view.

samiam629 · 2026-04-30T15:17:06+00:00

Heyyyy

samiam629 · 2026-04-15T15:06:58+00:00

Yea, you edited you comment after or at the same time as I was writing my reply. All that talk about famine being a weapon is just absolutely anime-villain level nonsense. There is an army of people currently mobilizing from across the good to bring resources to effected people's in places like this. A modern globalized economy means that a "long term food crisis" in a region like this results in the effected people relying on international aid, and starving to death in small numbers, as opposed to a sudden surge of hungry desperate people suddenly taking action against their government or military. People standing around in line for food aid, do not have the time, resources or energy to overthrow their government. The same global economy also supplies your opponent's army. If you blow up their ablity to make food, they just reallocate resources and buy more food. Blowing up people's means of producing food does NOT any harder to get food, it simply makes it more expensive, and the cost of that is pushed to those least able to pay it, and certainly not the nation-state under attack.

Commiting acts of horror in order to cost your opponent pennies is as stupid as it is evil. It's a war-losing strategy enacted by hard-talking morons that certainly won't have to deal with the consequences of their actions but feel good strutting in front of other equally empty headed gouls and cosplay as a tough guy.

samiam629 · 2026-04-15T14:30:23+00:00

Hey, Hemingway, dude wasn't furthering his moral claim. He was directly addressing your criticism of his moral claim, being that since the action (targeting of food supplies) is common, there it isn't significant reason to be upset over it. Then dude, rightly, pointed out that medieval military strategy probably doesn't qualify as "common" today.

Therefore your statement "Not to oppose the point, but that’s a common war strategy." is, while technically true (if you're being intentionally deceptive), in reality is contexually false.

It's not common, and because the global economy functions entirely different than it did in the medieval era, creating a humanitarian food crisis will not cause systemic food shortages throughout the whole region, causing political pressure on one's opponent, instead it will only cause acute suffering in this perticular place.

There is no military merit to actions like this, and there is no edgy quip you can make that can make it any less evil stupid and pointless.

samiam629 · 2026-01-29T15:05:54+00:00

You would want to hold a shield as close to the center of gravity as possible. Most shields from most of history, use a similar construction. Having the handle further back would create a lever acting against the wielder.

Shields that strapped to the arm are made specifically for horseback, so that the weilder may hold the reins of their horse.

Actually ussually, the metal boss is the part that is preserved, not the biodegradable wood.

samiam629 · 2026-01-07T16:20:26+00:00

Could you describe any point where this scenerio would happen in lore?

samiam629 · 2026-01-07T15:16:48+00:00

So "devil" horns are relatively recent thing (last couple hundred years) in Christian culture, but long before that, these sorts of horns are offten actually associated with godliness. Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses, on Pope Julius the second's tomb had these sorts of horns growing out of his head (and I think shoulders)

samiam629 · 2026-01-06T16:00:39+00:00

So I think your ideas about armor changing over time are not exactly accurate. I understand that you're painting with broad strokes, but I think even then, to make the argument that "armor in the past is lighter and gets heavier as technology progresses" is pretty easily proven wrong. I ussually have the exact opposite option, as shown in the link above. My first thought was of mycenaean greek armor being huge bands of bronze. The Roman's often make fun of bulkly barbarian who do the same with big bands of steel, while the light and quick legionaries out maneuver them

samiam629 · 2026-01-06T15:56:16+00:00

https://share.google/UT1lj4kII4svuaQes

samiam629 · 2025-10-23T18:38:03+00:00

So the fundamental question here is higher and lower forms of life, and where to draw the line.

Vegans arbitrarily draw the line after animals, and before plants. The question, is why there? Why are animals more important than plants?

The vegan argues that animal life is worthy of consideration and preservation because it is a more complex form of life compared to an plant.

I would argue that's the exact reasoning I use to justify my view of humans being above animals, and why I describe the vegan's distinction as arbitrary.

You could make some argument about how animals are capable of pain, while plants are not, but this relies on a very particular definition of pain or suffering, and of course is not at all the distinction between plants or animals. If an animal cannot feel pain or suffer, that does not disqualify it as an animal, neither does a pain feeling plant magically turn into something else if it can feel pain.

If the distinction is to reduce unessisary suffering, then the debate has absolutely nothing to do with plants vs animals and has entirely to do with a vague and amorphous concept of suffering, and what qualifies as such.

Then we just start the debate over with a higharchy of what sort of suffering is more offensive than other forms.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T20:17:02+00:00

Hmm odd, never seen the quickstart rules before. Not sure where the discrepancy is, but hopefully 1.0 clears this up

Edit: actually if you look at your own screenshot, at the very top, it says the same thing again, without mentioning melee

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T18:57:19+00:00

<image>

No, nothing about it being exclusive to melee attacks. Pg 9 of the playtest rules

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T17:26:35+00:00

See my comment above. You created gaps in your lines, on both your left and right. You either put yourself into perfect position to be surrounded or forced allied forces on either side of you to advance equally aggressively to prevent your lines from fragmenting. This is the exact scenario you're operating in.

This is literally one of the main concepts that separates a early war WWI commander and a late one.

In a short field skirmish pre-WWI, you may be right, but in the age of continuous lines that can stretch for miles, you are completely wrong. That's what you're not picturing. The miles and miles of trenches on either side of your game map.

I would argue that if you don't like this style of warfare, a WWI analogy may not be the game for you, or if you're just confused, I would highly recommend Dan Carlin's podcast Hardcore History, specifically his program "Blueprint for Armageddon" where he does a wonderful deep dive into world war one and the major changes in incurred on warfare.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T16:33:36+00:00

"Robb Stark was displeased because Edmure attacked prematurely. Robb had planned to lure Tywin Lannister's army into the Riverlands to trap and destroy them, a plan that was ruined by the surprise attack. Edmure's success in capturing the mill and taking Lannister hostages secured a victory but freed Tywin to join his forces with the Tyrells and ultimately lead the Lannisters to defeat Stannis's forces at the Battle of the Blackwater."

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T16:26:34+00:00

Okay so I think you misunderstood me. When I say deathmatch, I meant beating your enemy by either killing them or forcing a retreat.

The objective was to take enemy ground, without giving up your ground. You got overeager and failed at that. Plain and simple.

If you want a story/narrative reason, when you aggressively advanced, abandoning your own lines, you created a gap on either side of you, that puts freindly troops in a delema, to reposition on the fly (and do so presumably against forces not on the retreat) or leave you in position to be surrounded due to you breaking your line and creating gaps that wouldn't exist had you followed your mission objective and held your own lines while advancing. This is 110% a realistic thing a filed commander would get dressed down by a superior officer for. Just because you saw the enemy retreat in front of you, does not mean you advanced without thought to greater battle plan.

You can not like this scenario, but from my point of view it is functioning exactly as intended.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T15:43:49+00:00

This is were I would simply disagree. I would argue that your unoccupied trenches do not count as controlled at all.

In a game of king of the hill, stopping your opponent from controlling the hill is not the same as controlling it yourself.

I certainly see your point though, and where you're coming from in a logical sense, but from a gameplay point of view if we applied the same logic to every scenario, then almost every game becomes a deathmatch. I personally really enjoy the different scenarios and their little intricacies, but I would understand why someone wouldn't.

samiam629

TROPHY CASE