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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it is not a poor position if that is the correct reading of the rules. This is RAW, not rules-to-make-thegame-work

And when there are two interpretations, one of which breaks rules and one doesn't, which one is correct?

Very pertinent example - during 5th, prior to a late edition FAQ, Shrike COULD NOT infiltrate with a unit without the infiltrate USR on their profile.

This made his rule entirely non-functional, yet was the absolute 100% accurate rules-as-written.

It didn't make it non-functional. The rule you're talking about gives Shrike Infiltrate - if it was non-functional it wouldn't.

During 4th edition C: SM Terminators did not have an armour save, as they did not have the wargear "Terminator Armour". Was this silly? Yes, of course it was. Was it wrong, from a strict rules stand point? No

I wasn't around in 4th so I can't speak to that. From what you're saying though it's not an interpretation issue, just a factual rules issue.

So please, stop arguing "broken consequences" here.

So... the game literally breaks using your interpretation and you're okay with that?

You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?

You know it's addition when the words "in addition to" or "also" or some other indicative phrase is used.
If it isn't used, you cannot (and must not) assume that it's meant to be.
It's replacement when it simply says "A is B." or "A is treated as B."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Rig can you use a Bolt Pistol to make Overwatch shots?

Yes, absolutely.

BRB page 52 wrote:A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

I bolded the important word here. It's both a shooting weapon and also a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

Because it is also a ranged weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

No, and furthermore rigeld2 quoted exactly why it doesn't. Keyword: also

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

It would behoove you to read my entire post instead of just a single word.

A Pistol also counts as a CCW. Note the bolded word. Note how it's missing in the DA banner.
Please attempt to make an actual point instead of ignoring parts of my post.

Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

No you didn't miss it. But it does say to treat it as Salvo 2/4. Does is somewhere say treat is as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4, did we all miss that part? Let's just go with what the rule ACTUALLY says (RAW), not what we think it might mean (RAI).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

No, it doesn't use the word "only".
It doesn't have to.

Saying that something is A means that it's only A, not A+B.
Saying that something is A and also B means that it's only A+B, not A+B+C.

Rigeld - no, it allowed a unit he was joined to to infiltrate. Which they could never do. Which is a broken rule.

GW make broken rules. IF that is the *actual* written rule then you acknowledge that and move on. You wont acknowledge that, so it wont move on.

Again: show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

So Nos, it's no longer a RAW agruement from yourself? You admit you're arguing RAI?

Building damage table page 94.
Total Collapse and Detonation.
Both of these say "The building can no longer be occupied and is hereafter treated as impassable terrain."
"Treated as" in this case means "is".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - no, it allowed a unit he was joined to to infiltrate. Which they could never do. Which is a broken rule.

It also gives Shrike infiltrate. I'm looking right at the rule in the codex. He doesn't have it without that rule.

GW make broken rules. IF that is the *actual* written rule then you acknowledge that and move on. You wont acknowledge that, so it wont move on.

There's a difference between a rule not working as designed and a rule literally breaking the game. Shrike's rule was the former, you're advocating for an interpretation that leads to the latter.

Again: show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

Saying that something is A means that it's only A, not A+B.
Saying that something is A and also B means that it's only A+B, not A+B+C.

I don't have to show that because it's normal language usage.

A phone is connected and able to make calls.
I go to you and tell you to treat the phone as disconnected.
That does not mean you are able to make calls on the disconnected phone.

Liturgies - so, yet again putting words in my mouth? I didnt actually say that. I was pointing out that this can result in broken rules. That doesnt mean I am arguing RAI. I suggest you read up on the meaning of RAI and RAW to learn what each means.

Rigeld - So, one of the two rules worked. What about the one that just didnt work?

Why is there a difference, RAW, between the two end results? You have seen the old silly RAW thread, yes?

Are you now saying you are NOT arguing RAW, but what you believe RAI is? That is the only possible reason that the consequences of the rule have any bearing on a discussion about what th erule actually states.

So, again you are saying "treats as" means "treat as only" in all cases, yes? Yet you denied that was the case earlier. Which is it? When does it become additive? What are the rules for this?

Show some *actual* rules from how you determine when "treats as" is additive, and when it is replacement. Prove your case. Because currently you have a load of assertions not backed up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - So, one of the two rules worked. What about the one that just didnt work?

It didn't break the game by not working. Your assertion does break the game when Lash Whips and Whip Coils are used.

Shrike in a game - game continues with a single non functional rule.
Lash Whips in a game - game is broken as soon as a model starts the Fight sub-phase in b2b with a Lash Whip model.

Why is there a difference, RAW, between the two end results? You have seen the old silly RAW thread, yes?

Read what I just said and that should explain the difference. One results in a non-functional rule, the other results in a non-functional game.

Are you now saying you are NOT arguing RAW, but what you believe RAI is? That is the only possible reason that the consequences of the rule have any bearing on a discussion about what th erule actually states.

No, and please don't put words in my mouth. I enjoy it as much as you do.
And no, that's not the only possible reason.

So, again you are saying "treats as" means "treat as only" in all cases, yes? Yet you denied that was the case earlier. Which is it? When does it become additive? What are the rules for this?

No, I'm not saying that it always means that and never have. As soon as I do you'll come back with "but what about when it says also!?!???"
With no other qualifiers "treats as" is the same thing as "treats as only". Now go ahead and take that out of context to make me look like a fool.

Show some *actual* rules from how you determine when "treats as" is additive, and when it is replacement. Prove your case. Because currently you have a load of assertions not backed up.

That's a lie. I've backed up literally every word I've said. Please, I'm begging you, quote something I haven't backed up.

Please, show some actual rules to define "the". That's exactly what you're asking me to do.

Edit: I hate autocorrect

It's funny nos, I asked a question about your arguing RAI, you get snippy with me and then accuse Rigeld of arguing RAI.

It's not breaking any rule when you read "treats as" effectively as "is" and according to you we break 1 rule and you're interpretation breaks more than 3(collapsed buildings, whip coils etc) so on the balance of break the least rules, the argument goes to us.

On what the rules actually say on the paper it goes to us.

What else is there?