Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FlingitNow wrote:

I'll give an example of so you can spot the fault.

Can you start a game with model place on top of each other
a) Raw you can as it is only prohibited during movement
b) the must be placed so they can move

Not a remotely similar poll that appears to be asking what the rules are. My poll is what will people play given RAW & RAI are A but the INAT FAQ is B.

I'm not debating RAW or RAI that is obvious and not up for debate in this thread. I'm asking people how they will play given RAW and RAI and that the INAT FAQ disagrees which do they choose INAT or RAW and RAI.

I don't think you intended to make this poll biased, but due to all language being up for interpretation by the recipient of said information, it is very much plausable (sp?) that your poll can be interpreted that your poll is presented in a biased format.

Although if you ignore the post you made after the poll question which is your opinion of said situation then i do not believe the poll question itself was presented in a biased format..


Do you play RAI/RaW?

Do you play INAT FAQ?

which is how I personally interpreted your poll question, but it was my interpretation none the less..

FlingitNow wrote:

I'll give an example of so you can spot the fault.

Can you start a game with model place on top of each other
a) Raw you can as it is only prohibited during movement
b) the must be placed so they can move

Not a remotely similar poll that appears to be asking what the rules are. My poll is what will people play given RAW & RAI are A but the INAT FAQ is B.

I'm not debating RAW or RAI that is obvious and not up for debate in this thread. I'm asking people how they will play given RAW and RAI and that the INAT FAQ disagrees which do they choose INAT or RAW and RAI.

No you haven't a poll on that would be ...

Will you follow the INAT FAQ ruling on Hive Tyrants only add +1 to the reseve roll, while on the table?
A) Always
B) only when the INAT FAQ is being used.
c) Never!

FlingitNow wrote:

as I cannot bring myself to vote in such a bias poll)

Again there is nothing bias about the poll. Please show me where in the question I bias that RAW + RAI > INAT ruling?

Please someone tell me what I've put in the poll that bias toward RAI and RAW opposed to INAT?

Maybe b/c in your poll options you don't even mention INAT...

When I first read it, I saw

Do you follow the Rules?
Or do you just make stuff up?

After I read your post, I understood that you were comparing INAT to RaW/RaI but even then, your post is pretty heavy handed towards one of the poll options and doesn't provide a neutral explanation.

Do you play RAI/RaW?

Do you play INAT FAQ?

which is how I personally interpreted your poll question, but it was my interpretation none the less..

That is my question and I don't see a bias in there. Do people believe eth INAT FAQ overrides RAW and RAI in this instance for how they play it.

What is RAW or RAI is not what I'm trying to debate here. I'm just asking if people would still follow the INAT FAQ for play even when it clearly disagrees with RAW and RAI.

FlingitNow wrote:

Do you play RAI/RaW?

Do you play INAT FAQ?

which is how I personally interpreted your poll question, but it was my interpretation none the less..

That is my question and I don't see a bias in there. Do people believe eth INAT FAQ overrides RAW and RAI in this instance for how they play it.

What is RAW or RAI is not what I'm trying to debate here. I'm just asking if people would still follow the INAT FAQ for play even when it clearly disagrees with RAW and RAI.

then id say just edit your poll questions to fit that, or make a new poll worded more carefully if your worried about skewed results.

Maybe b/c in your poll options you don't even mention INAT...

When I first read it, I saw

Do you follow the Rules?
Or do you just make stuff up?

After I read your post, I understood that you were comparing INAT to RaW/RaI but even then, your post is pretty heavy handed towards one of the poll options and doesn't provide a neutral explanation.

fair enough I should have put INAT in the 2nd question (I don't know how to edit it now). The post afterwards is supposed to be bias as that is me putting forward my point of view, the inital question was not. But yeah reading it back now without InAT in the 2nd option it is not clear that is what the question is driving at cheers for pointing that out.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:If I may ask someone who has voted (as I cannot bring myself to vote in such a bias poll) what are the results so far?

gwar you can click view results ... but its 15 : 12

Brainfart moment there lol.

Klawz wrote:Do you think that DoM gets an Invulnerable save?
A) Yes, because that is what any well-minded, reasonable person would think.
B) No, because I'm TFG, as well as a WAAC gamer.

Now, is this biased?

Yes, because there is not a "C) Gwar! is so very awesome and I like banana pudding" option.

I love that pic

No you haven't a poll on that would be ...

Will you follow the INAT FAQ ruling on Hive Tyrants only add +1 to the reseve roll, while on the table?
A) Always
B) only when the INAT FAQ is being used.
c) Never!

No because there is no mention of RAW or RAI in there. So if it is RAW and RAI vs INAT you need to have RAW and RAI mentioned. Forgot to put INAT in the 2nd option which was dumb of me granted.

TopC wrote:

Klawz wrote:Do you think that DoM gets an Invulnerable save?
A) Yes, because that is what any well-minded, reasonable person would think.
B) No, because I'm TFG, as well as a WAAC gamer.

Now, is this biased?

lets take a poll and decide if you are?

Let's not.

Why can't you just accept that the poll is biased as it is currently worded and make an adjustment to fix it?

You're talking past each other. He posted the poll assuming the rules were clear and "settled." Everyone else is reading it as a poll about what the rule says. His poll is a how you will play it, the "right" way or the INAT way.

Arschbombe wrote:the "right" way or the INAT way.

Bias!

That's why right is in quotation marks.

FlingitNow wrote:

No you haven't a poll on that would be ...

Will you follow the INAT FAQ ruling on Hive Tyrants only add +1 to the reseve roll, while on the table?
A) Always
B) only when the INAT FAQ is being used.
c) Never!

No because there is no mention of RAW or RAI in there. So if it is RAW and RAI vs INAT you need to have RAW and RAI mentioned. Forgot to put INAT in the 2nd option which was dumb of me granted.

And you need to mention RAW and RAI why? You seem to have decided what the RAW and RAI are - why not make the poll "Do you agree with me or are you completely wrong and talking out of your anus?"

And you need to mention RAW and RAI why? You seem to have decided what the RAW and RAI are - why not make the poll "Do you agree with me or are you completely wrong and talking out of your anus?"

Not every plays every rule to RAW or RAI, evidently INAT in this case have dispensed with both and I was just wondering if others would follow them or follow the rules.

Though I haven't decided what RAW and RAI GW did that I've just uinderstood what RAW and RAI are. Read the rules it is very clear no room for interpretation or discussion. So if someone rules it a different way for no reason I was just wondering if people would still follow it. According to this poll they will.

FlingitNow wrote:According to this incredibly bias poll that by definition is invalid, they will.

Fix'd

Gwar! you repeatedly miss understand the poll and therefore claim it bias. This poll as I have repeated pointed out (and only Arschbombe seems to have been able top understand) is not about what the RAW or RAI is. There is no value discussing that as it is clear from the text, there is about as much point discussing that as discussing the infantry move 6" rule.

I'm trying to discuss will people throw RAI and RAW out the window and follow INAT. People are claiming that they will.

FlingitNow wrote:It can't be a different take on RAI it must be them beleiving their ruling goes above RAI because there is no legitimate basis for claiming RAI other than how the rule works.

No basis? How about the fact that the Autarch's similar ability specifically states that it applies when he is off the table, whilst this one doesn't?

That at the very least casts some doubt.


Your take on RAI is your opinion on what is intended. It's not fact. It's just a guess, however well reasoned.

No basis? How about the fact that the Autarch's similar ability specifically states that it applies when he is off the table, whilst this one doesn't?

That at the very least casts some doubt.


Your take on RAI is your opinion on what is intended. It's not fact. It's just a guess, however well reasoned.

That was written by a different person for a different rule set, in fact it was written by a far more competant rules writer hence the clarification. This codex was written by one person and for the Lictor he choose to specifically state he has to be on the board, for the Tyrant he could have just copied and pasted if he wanted the rule to work the same. He clearly didn't hence he chose to write the rule differently because the effect works differently.

If you claim he wanted the rules to work the same why would he write them so totally differently? No reasonable person would do this.

Your example cast no "reasonable" doubt on the intentions of the writer beyond what I've stated.

Full disclosure here:

I think Hive Commander is supposed to function when the Tyrant is in Reserves. The INAT vote was split (as many are) and I was on the short side of the vote.

IMHO, the fact that the Lictor in the codex has one rule specifying that he has to be on the table while another similar rule in the same codex doesn't have the same restriction indicates to me a high likelihood that the author intended for Hive Commander to be in effect even when the Tyrant was in Reserves.

However we definitely cannot know that for sure, which was pointed out with good reason by those on the council voting against me. How many times have we seen a rule in one section of a codex copy and pasted from a previous source while a similar rule in another area of the book appears to be written from scratch?

Unfortunately enough times to know that we can't know for sure that the inclusion of such a restriction in the Lictor's rule unequivocally means that the Hive Tyrant's Hive Commander rule means the opposite.


Does the fact that Acid Blood and Toxic Miasma mention that no cover saves are allowed mean that because such a line isn't included in the Spirit Leech rule that automatically the author intended for cover saves to be allowed against these attacks? Again, not necessarily, because we have no idea about the process the author actually went about writing.

There is always the possibility that any differences between rules are simply coincidence and not some secret message from the author and that's why trying to guess what the RAI are is never a sure-fire answer that everyone can get behind.



So why does the Hive Commander rule use the term 'while alive' if it isn't meant to tell you that you're allowed to use it while he is in Reserves? The answer put forth by those who voted against me on the council was simply that without that caveat players would wonder if the bonus continues to apply even after the Hive Tyrant has been killed. While I don't personally think this is the case, I can't argue with the fact that it could be the reason.



I think most of us can agree that models which are in Reserves generally shouldn't be able to affect the game unless specified otherwise. If this kind of ruling isn't in place then you get silly things like WH/DH psychic hoods being used from Reserves, Tau Seeker missiles being fired off of vehicles in Reserve, etc.

It is definitely a ruling that needs to be in place in the INAT to preserve some modicum of sanity. But the question still remains...even with that ruling in place, does the term 'while alive' constitute enough specificity to allow the ability to be used while in Reserve?

I happen to think it does, but I can understand why others would say it doesn't.

FlingitNow wrote: This codex was written by one person and for the Lictor he choose to specifically state he has to be on the board, for the Tyrant he could have just copied and pasted if he wanted the rule to work the same. He clearly didn't hence he chose to write the rule differently because the effect works differently.

Or he just didn't bother using consistent wording for both rules. This is the same guy who didn't feel the need to clarify Spore Mine movement, or that the Doom is a Zoanthrope.


You have decided that the different wording means that they are intended to mean different things. And that's fine. It gives you a workable interpretation. But that doesn't make it the right interpretation, or necessarily what was intended by the rule.

That's what you're still missing. Whether or not you think that a given interpretation is reasonable is no basis for deciding whether or not it is RAI. He might have written the two rules differently because he intended them to work differently. He might have intended them to work the same and just wrote them differently on the assumption that it didn't matter since they were clear (in his mind) as written. He might have intended the Hive Commander rule to do something completely different and somehow a portion of the Autarch's rule got copy pasted into the entry. He might have intended it to only apply on the table, but the 'on the table' text was accidentally deleted during the printing process. Or he might even have intended it to apply on the table and just forgot to say so. (Wouldn't be the first 'whoops... that's not what we meant' moment in GW rules writing... See the Inquisitor/Assassin team up debates when Codex DH was released.)

There is no way of knowing, short of the designer actually telling us, which of those is the actual intention. The best you have is a guess, based on what you think is the most reasonable interpretation.

FlingitNow wrote:That was written by a different person for a different rule set, in fact it was written by a far more competant rules writer hence the clarification. This codex was written by one person ....

Hang on a second could have swarn there was more then one person ... let me check ...

Written by: Robin Cruddac ... one
Art, book design, photography, 'eavy metal, ... lots of people (though not directly related to the rules)
Game development: Alessio Cavatore, Robin Cruddace, Graham Davey, Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, Phil Kelly, Andrew Kerick, Jeremy Vetock, Matthew Ward ... another 9 people that could have written the rules.
Hobby team, Miniature design, Production & epographics, Special thanks ... more people (not directly part of the rules)

If you claim he wanted the rules to work the same why would he write them so totally differently? No reasonable person would do this.

Your example cast no "reasonable" doubt on the intentions of the writer beyond what I've stated.

So with 10 people working on this might it be possible that maybe the rule was written 2 different ways ...

(... oh and for those wondering eldar rules only appear to be written by Rick Priestley ... which may explain alot)

It appears that Flingitnow is the Gestalt conciousness of GW!

Quick, mug him and take his poor Grammar and terrible writing skills away!

yakface wrote:
So why does the Hive Commander rule use the term 'while alive' if it isn't meant to tell you that you're allowed to use it while he is in Reserves? The answer put forth by those who voted against me on the council was simply that without that caveat players would wonder if the bonus continues to apply even after the Hive Tyrant has been killed. While I don't personally think this is the case, I can't argue with the fact that it could be the reason.

If the rule says "while alive" why would the idea of the ability still functioning after the Tyrant was dead even be entertained? "While alive" and "after the Hive Tyrant has been killed" seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm not busting balls, I'm seriously asking here.

However we definitely cannot know that for sure, which was pointed out with good reason by those on the council voting against me. How many times have we seen a rule in one section of a codex copy and pasted from a previous source while a similar rule in another area of the book appears to be written from scratch?

Not with rules THIS similar. They are essentially the same rule but have differebnt caveats as to when they apply. the Lictor says when he's on the board the Hive Tyrant when he's alive.

Does the fact that Acid Blood and Toxic Miasma mention that no cover saves are allowed automatically mean that because such a line isn't included in the Spirit Leech rule this automatically means the author intended for cover saves to be allowed against these attacks? Again, not necessarily because we have no idea about the process the author actually went about writing.

Those are very different rules covering very different situations. Yes in both cases you are receiving damage but the entire mechanism is different so copy an dpasting wouldn't necessarily occur to the author or save him any work as the bulk o fthe rule is so different and thus copy would cause more problems that it would solve.

So why does the Hive Commander rule use the term 'while alive' if it isn't meant to tell you that you're allowed to use it while he is in Reserves? The answer put forth by those who voted against me on the council was simply that without that caveat players would wonder if the bonus continues to apply even after the Hive Tyrant has been killed. While I don't personally think this is the case, I can't argue with the fact that it could be the reason.

Yes it could be there to make it clear he doesn't receive the bonus after death there is still nothing in the rules that hint at it not working when he's in reserves. And again we go to an identical rule where they have put that wording in...

I think most of us can agree that models which are in Reserves generally shouldn't be able to affect the game unless specified otherwise.

yes and

But the question still remains...even with that ruling in place, does the term 'while alive' constitute enough specificity to allow the ability to be used while in Reserve?

yes. Though I still don't understand the motivation for you guys to throw out RAW and RAI for a perfectly clear workable rule. Do you believe Tyranid DS armies are unbalanced and this was your way of reigning them in? Or did you just want to nobble the tyranids as a big FU to GW for releasing such a poorly written codex?

That's what you're still missing. Whether or not you think that a given interpretation is reasonable is no basis for deciding whether or not it is RAI. He might have written the two rules differently because he intended them to work differently. He might have intended them to work the same and just wrote them differently on the assumption that it didn't matter since they were clear (in his mind) as written. He might have intended the Hive Commander rule to do something completely different and somehow a portion of the Autarch's rule got copy pasted into the entry. He might have intended it to only apply on the table, but the 'on the table' text was accidentally deleted during the printing process. Or he might even have intended it to apply on the table and just forgot to say so. (Wouldn't be the first 'whoops... that's not what we meant' moment in GW rules writing... See the Inquisitor/Assassin team up debates when Codex DH was released.)

Yes and we don't know 2+2=4 because of the continuum hypothesis, I'm still willing to bet your house on it . Frivolous arguments like these don't stop the RAW an RAI being clear from the rules. There is no room for interpretation on these anymore than the Doom's 3++ save (RAW is he doesn't get it RAI is that he does).

Yes we could argue that he intended for the Doom's save to be useless and that he intended for the Swarmlord Paroxym to last forever but that is not a reasonable argument much like the Hive Commander not working from reserve "argument". It has no basis in either RAW or RAI.

Flingitnow, please, stop. You do NOT know RaI, and you think RaW is not the Rules as Written in the Codex.

You do not know what you are talking about, that much is clear.

Monster Rain wrote:If the rule says "while alive" why would the idea of the ability still functioning after the Tyrant was dead even be entertained? "While alive" and "after the Hive Tyrant has been killed" seems pretty cut and dry to me.

The point Yakface was making was that this may be exactly why it says 'while alive'... If it didn't, it could be argued that the ability still applies after he has been killed off.


On a related note, it occurs to me that it is difficult to tell when the Tyrant is no longer alive... If he suffers Instant Death, then he's dead. But if he is removed as a casualty from anything else, the rules tell us that he is not necessarily dead, just incapacitated or otherwise unfit to continue fighting.

Flingitnow, please, stop. You do NOT know RaI, and you think RaW is not the Rules as Written in the Codex.

In this case I do know RAI and I never said RAW is not the rules as written, I said RAW is the not the rules of 40k as designed by GW.

Of course! Using Flingitnow's very liberal approach to RaI, it is obvious they intended it to always work unless the Tyrant was killed by Instant Death!

Thank you insaniak!