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.

kirsanth wrote:And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

They aren't necessarily exclusive.
My understanding was that the point is (endlessly) debatable, while being meaningless practically (often rendered so by the endless debating itself).

That would be a lot closer to what I was saying in the first place.

There is no case for debate in this case. The answer is there, and has been shown. Debate in that case is not moot, it is someone not listening/reading/understanding.

Moot would be something that can be legitimately debated -- endless or not (as many issues in YMDC really are).
Generally to be a moot point, in that regard, the debate should be legitimate. Which is why I said not moot, in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like this discussion!

You are not using it technically wrong.
That is a legitimate usage, it is just using "moot" in a manner that can be the opposite of the meaning of the word "moot".

Debate doesn't necessarily have to be valid and logical on both sides, it can refer to simple unregulated discussion of/arguing over a disputed topic.
If one side is incorrectly reading the rules, the debate is sure to be endless

kirsanth wrote:And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

Actually, the idiom comes from the fact that a "moot" was a meeting where people got together to discuss legal issues, community affairs, and to meet out justice.

"Moot point" comes closer to the 1531 usage of "moot case" which was a discussion of a hypothetical law case, and later came to refer to students practicing debate over legal issues. The American usage of "moot point" refers to that last, more academic root of the idiom. Oftentimes, such an academic debate serves no other purpose that for two sides to have a debate; there's no practical resolution, and the debate doesn't serve a purpose to further understanding or resolve a conflict.

Hence, the American idea of the idiom meaning something not worth discussing as being irrelevant or of no importance.

Ironically, the British usage of the idiom is probably less idiomatic and more true to the original meaning of "moot point" in that it is something that is open to debate. The American version concedes that the matter might or might not be open to debate, but it really isn't worth the time.

Edited for clarity.

moot–adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.


From American definitions, since they list the contradictions for me.

Okay, I'm finally caught up with the debate.

So far, I have not seen a single rule suggesting what makes the BRB rule on Sweeping Advance somehow more specific than the specific codex rule for WBB. If a rule says that it always functions perfectly as written in that spot against absolutely everything, and it is in the main rulebook, isn't this a textbook case of a general rule?

Here it is. The SA rule is more specific because it specifically states special rules do not work against it. Conversely, the WBB special rule does not have a specific statement saying it works against SA. Because of this, SA is more specific in of the two rules when it comes to models wanting to WBB from an SA.

Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

Angelis Ex wrote:Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

Read it again.
The main rulebook rule specifically disallows Special Rules from being used to save the unit.
The codex SR just generally saves the unit.
Also, the WBB rule doesn't apply to the unit being removed in the first place.

It doesn't work.

Angelis Ex wrote:Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

And in the context of SA telling you you need to specify otherwise this means you need to specify it works against SA. Like ATSKNF.

WBB does not do so. WBB has NEVER done so, and it has NEVER worked - look at 4th ed: the example given in the SA rule was that WBB does not work. All they have done (they have not changed a single other word) in 5th ed is remove WBB as an example of a special rule that does not work.

WBB never, ever works against SA. Ever.

This thread is perhaps starting to wander a tad close to the uncivil side of the paddock in places.

Please stick to arguing the point, rather than directing comments at the poster.