I've been informed of the INAT ruling on Hive Commander and wanted to know how people would play it. I persumed the entire point of Hive Commander was to make the Tyranid DS assault army work witth the DP assault rule. Hence you hold everything in reserve and have 1-2 Flyrants ready to DS in with the rest of the army.

The rule states that the Hive Tyrant must be alive to get the +1 reserves roll (lets not bother discussing whether it stacks with multi-hive tryants as that will go nowhere until an FAQ). So is he not alive when sat in reserve? If not what use is he when he comes on if he's already dead? The INAT FAQ says the ruling is he has to be on the table for the bonus to count which completely defeats the entire object of the special rule. I was wondering if any one would play it that way? I had honestly not even considered that as a possibility until informed of the ruling. Do people think that ruling will be adopted, do you think TOs would follow such a bizarre ruling? How would you play it? By RAW and RAI or by this bizarre ruling that makes no sense?

If you want to follow this ruling please let me know why you think it is correct?

Bias poll is Bias.

How is it bias? I've put nothing in the polling question that is negative to either oppinion. Do you follow RAW and RAI or do you follow INAT?

You obviously are against RAW in this instance I presume?

FlingitNow wrote:How is it bias?

Because you have loaded the answers. If it were a fair poll, you would just have a Yes or No answer.

Because you have loaded the answers. If it were a fair poll, you would just have a Yes or No answer.

They are not loaded answers. Not everyone follows RAW in fact no-one follows RAW to the letter. Likewise plenty of people like to ignore RAI even when it is clear.

The RAW is clear I am not asking peole to debate the RAW or the RAI but whether they follwo that or the other ruling. It is loaded questions just accurate questions for those that maybe unaware of what the RAW is.

I think he is referring to the fact that you are telling us what the rules are intending. No matter how much RAW seems to be cut and dry it is always up for interpretation.

Do not get me wrong, I am not disputing your claim to it being RAW or RAI, but you saying that it is in your poll and then reiterating it in your post may come across to some as being bias.

I think he is referring to the fact that you are telling us what the rules are intending. No matter how much RAW seems to be cut and dry it is always up for interpretation.

Do not get me wrong, I am not disputing your claim to it being RAW or RAI, but you saying that it is in your poll and then reiterating it in your post may come across to some as being bias.

I'd argue in any court in England they'd rule RAI was with me beyond reasonable doubt. The lictor's rules specifically state it must be on the table the Hive Tyrants simply say a live hence the intention is clear as is the RAW.

People might view it as being bias but it is not. The other ruling has no inference from the text or from the fluff, there is absolutely no basis to argue it is either RAW or RAI. To claim anythign else is simply wrong.

It's as loaded a question as "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

"I follow RAW and RAI that he gets the +1 as long as he is alive" automatically assumes that RAW and RAI are clearly on one side of the issue, where, apparently, the INAT at least has a different take on RAI.

I think the rule should be played the way you suggest, but the poll does have a very clear author bias.

If you can't see how your poll is incredibly biased so as to intentionally skew the results then you're living in a world beyond reason.

Biased poll is biased.

G

Biased poll made me vote for something I wouldn't play.

"I follow RAW and RAI that he gets the +1 as long as he is alive" automatically assumes that RAW and RAI are clearly on one side of the issue, where, apparently, the INAT at least has a different take on RAI.

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.

If you can't see how your poll is incredibly biased so as to intentionally skew the results then you're living in a world beyond reason.

I am no trying to intentionally scew the votes. I just want to know if you follow the rAW and RAI or if you want to play it differently.

Biased poll made me vote for something I wouldn't play.

How sad for you.

Biased poll.

None of us can say what the Intent is, as none of us wrote the rule.

The INAT FAQ council explains their basic process and reasoning at the front of their document. RAW and what they each perceive to be the RAI are certainly major factors in their deliberations.

Obviously you do not share their opinion in this case. But for me, your poll is not useful, and I will not be voting in it.

None of us can say what the Intent is

I disagree strongly wuith this statement. It implies we have no intelligence at all. I can state as a 100% categorical fact that RAI on The Doom of Malan'tai is that it gets a 3++ save. I'd be happy to argue that with anyone in abritish court. The ruling above is just as clear.

The INAT FAQ council explains their basic process and reasoning at the front of their document. RAW and what they each perceive to be the RAI are certainly major factors in their deliberations.

Evidently the decided against both in this instance.

But for me, your poll is not useful, and I will not be voting in it.

Fair enough.

FlingitNow wrote:

None of us can say what the Intent is

I disagree strongly wuith this statement. It implies we have no intelligence at all. I can state as a 100% categorical fact that RAI on The Doom of Malan'tai is that it gets a 3++ save. I'd be happy to argue that with anyone in abritish court. The ruling above is just as clear.

No, the point I am making is that the designers have not explicitly explained their intent to us, either in writing or verbally. Since they have not told it to us, and since we are not them, it is literally impossible for us to be certain exactly what it is. We can only make inferences. Or ask them, if we happen to see them at an event somewhere.

You’re free to share your opinion, but what you did with your poll is to assume your inference as a settled issue, which it most certainly is not. This is a dishonest way of seeking information, or of pushing people to accept your opinion as a precondition of responding to the poll.

I recommend reading any of Yakface’s You Make Da Call polls, as great examples of how to present these kind of questions with a minimum of bias and a maximum of clarity.

No, the point I am making is that the designers have not explicitly explained their intent to us, either in writing or verbally. Since they have not told it to us, and since we are not them, it is literally impossible for us to be certain exactly what it is.

Wrong it is entirely possible know their intent at times even without them expressly telling us so. Granted some times their intent is impossible to determine and some times it is probably obvious without being 100% knowable. In the case of the Doom intent is 100% categorical as it is here.

You’re free to share your opinion, but what you did with your poll is to assume your inference as a settled issue, which it most certainly is not.

But it is a settled issue.

This is a dishonest way of seeking information, or of pushing people to accept your opinion as a precondition of responding to the poll.

I'm not asking anyone to accept my oppinion (that we should always play by RAI and RAW when they agree). The poll makes no judgement on whether playing RAW and RAI is correct or whether ignoring RAW and RAI is correct.

I recommend reading any of Yakface’s You Make Da Call polls, as great examples of how to present these kind of questions with a minimum of bias and a maximum of clarity.

There is still no bias in the poll. The poll is not to determine what people think RAW or RAI is because that in this case is indesputable. It is whether they play by RAW and RAI or whether they would rather play by the INAT ruling which has no basis in either RAW or RAI.

Like for instance the INAT decides that SMs should have T5 and puts that in as a ruling. The RAW and RAI is, like in the case above, clear that marines are T4 so you ask people whether they play the game as GW intended and at the same time follow the RAW or whether they throw out the RAW and RAI to follow the INAT ruling. What do people play most if RAI and RAW both agree and are different to the INAT FAQ.

Yup, that there's a "push poll."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Push_poll

I felt so dirty having to vote for the option that was stated to be against RAI, RAW, Mom, puppies and fresh-baked apple pie. Ain't I just the most awfulest of men?

I felt so dirty having to vote for the option that was stated to be against RAI, RAW, Mom, puppies and fresh-baked apple pie. Ain't I just the most awfulest of men?

Why did you feel bad? It was a simple question do you follow RAW and RAI or do you follow the INAT ruling which in this case is against both RAW and RAI. Not a push poll, nowhere is there incorrect information in the questions and neither answer says what I beleive. I give no inference in the poll as to whether I beleive following RAI and RAW is better than following INAT or vice versa. The article after it states my oppinion (that RAW and RAI is more important to me than the INAT FAQ), but the question says nothing about this.

LOL.

*ahem*

FlingitNow wrote:
Wrong it is entirely possible know their intent at times even without them expressly telling us so. Granted some times their intent is impossible to determine and some times it is probably obvious without being 100% knowable. In the case of the Doom intent is 100% categorical as it is here.

Apparently you know what evil lurks in the hearts of men... FlingitNow is... THE SHADOW!

But, really-- in the epistemological sense of the term, you do not -know- the intent of the authors. We can sometimes safely assume their intent (when they tell us to roll a d6, we can assume they mean one that has not been weighted for particular outcomes). Sometimes, we have to guess (Deff Rollas comes to mind).
...

But it is a settled issue.

Riiiight... you made a poll for a settled issue. If the issue is settled, why did the INAT disagree with you?
...

I'm not asking anyone to accept my oppinion (that we should always play by RAI and RAW when they agree). The poll makes no judgement on whether playing RAW and RAI is correct or whether ignoring RAW and RAI is correct.

The poll -does- make a judgment when it refers to one option as RAW and RAI, while the other option pees in your gas tank and clubs baby seals. It assumes that one option is THE[b][u] RAI and RAW. By default, that means that the other option is -not- the RAW/RAI. Pretty clear judgment on which answer you support. Further, your defense of it is also suggestive-- one answer is correct, while the other is ignoring the Rules.
...

There is still no bias in the poll. The poll is not to determine what people think RAW or RAI is because that in this case is indesputable. It is whether they play by RAW and RAI or whether they would rather play by the INAT ruling which has no basis in either RAW or RAI.

Like for instance the INAT decides that SMs should have T5 and puts that in as a ruling. The RAW and RAI is, like in the case above, clear that marines are T4 so you ask people whether they play the game as GW intended and at the same time follow the RAW or whether they throw out the RAW and RAI to follow the INAT ruling. What do people play most if RAI and RAW both agree and are different to the INAT FAQ.

Again, evidence of bias-- you're stating that the INAT has no basis in RAW or RAI, which, again, clearly assumes that you, personally, have divined the ONE TRUE RAI.

To top it all off, you present us with a nice little straw man with T5 marines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Mentioning that it was a INAT ruling in the second option would help remove some bias, but yeah, definetly a loaded question.

I follow RAW and RAI that he gets the +1 as long as he is alive.
The +1 reserves only works when he's on the table

Your options are:
I follow the rules,
I cheat

Apparently you know what evil lurks in the hearts of men... FlingitNow is... THE SHADOW!

But, really-- in the epistemological sense of the term, you do not -know- the intent of the authors. We can sometimes safely assume their intent (when they tell us to roll a d6, we can assume they mean one that has not been weighted for particular outcomes). Sometimes, we have to guess (Deff Rollas comes to mind).

I can know it as much as any man can know anything. I can know it to the same extent that I know 2+2=4 despite the fact that mathematics cannot prove the above equation due to the continuum hypothesis. If you want to be like that we don't even know what is written we could be hallucinating as to what the text says...

Riiiight... you made a poll for a settled issue. If the issue is settled, why did the INAT disagree with you?

the poll isn't about the resolved issue. It is about whether people follow RAW and RAI or whether they would follow INAT if it disagrees with both as it does in this case. I have no idea why INAT made a ruling with no basis in RAW or RAI. But they have done so the question is do you follow that ruling or follow RAW and RAI?

Again, evidence of bias-- you're stating that the INAT has no basis in RAW or RAI, which, again, clearly assumes that you, personally, have divined the ONE TRUE RAI.

The INAT ruling has no basis in RAW or RAI if you beleive it does start a thread up saying why. This thread is not about arguing inanities about the validity of this INAT ruling. It is about whether people will follow it despite the fact that it has no basis in either RAW or RAI.

To top it all off, you present us with a nice little straw man with T5 marines.

Oh dear I think you've shown yourself up here. Please read what I've said. The T5 example was to illustrate the point of the poll which again you have totally missed. You are under the misconception I was asking people to vote on whether they think the INAT FAQ follows RAW or RAI. I don't care what people think of that question I know the facts there, so I've asked whether people will play it by the RAW and RAI or by the INAT FAQ.

Poll should look like this
How do rule on the hive commander reserves bonus?
a) You gain +1 to your reseves roll even if he is not on the table
b) You only gain +1 to your reserves roll while he is on the table

... you may also do as yakface does and post a paragraph on each and then ask for a vote on a, b, c (ect)

Tri wrote:Poll should look like this
How do rule on the hive commander reserves bonus?
a) You gain +1 to your reseves roll even if he is not on the table
b) You only gain +1 to your reserves roll while he is on the table

... you may also do as yakface does and post a paragraph on each and then ask for a vote on a, b, c (ect)

I actually prefer Yakface's format because it forces you to read the post before voting.

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! 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

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?

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) you cannot move on to impassible terrain

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?

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?

Seriously, stop trolling Flingitnow. If you dont realize why this is an extremely biased poll then I truly feel bad for you...

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.

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!

I'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

Another case of anti-Tyranid RAYHAW.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

And of course, by that logic, if the Tyrant is removed as a casualty by anything other than Instant Death, the ability does not go away, because the Tyrant is not necessarily dead!

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.

The problem with this "argument" and why it is frivolous is you are saying that models can't effect games from reserves unless specifically stated on one hand whilst claiming the rule needs to states the Hive tyrants effects no longer take place after he is dead. I'd say allowing aura effects to continue after a model has died is a far bigger can of worms than them doing so from reserves. It is obvious to any reaosnable person that aura effects and special rules of models do not effect play after they are dead unless specified otherwise far more so than when they are in reserve.

Essentially you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Again I have to ask what was the motivation for this ruling?

No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

And of course, by that logic, if the Tyrant is removed as a casualty by anything other than Instant Death, the ability does not go away, because the Tyrant is not necessarily dead!

If the HT was hit with a Wraithcannon it would actually have been transported to the Warp and therefore still alive(for a while, maybe.)

But you know that this is insanity.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

Actually, Flingitnow is the only one basing his argument on RAW. The decisions made by people designing an FAQ should follow suit, and not try to change the rules around to accommodate those who can't read properly.

FlingitNow wrote:I've been informed of the INAT ruling on Hive Commander and wanted to know how people would play it. I persumed the entire point of Hive Commander was to make the Tyranid DS assault army work witth the DP assault rule. Hence you hold everything in reserve and have 1-2 Flyrants ready to DS in with the rest of the army.

The rule states that the Hive Tyrant must be alive to get the +1 reserves roll (lets not bother discussing whether it stacks with multi-hive tryants as that will go nowhere until an FAQ). So is he not alive when sat in reserve? If not what use is he when he comes on if he's already dead? The INAT FAQ says the ruling is he has to be on the table for the bonus to count which completely defeats the entire object of the special rule. I was wondering if any one would play it that way? I had honestly not even considered that as a possibility until informed of the ruling. Do people think that ruling will be adopted, do you think TOs would follow such a bizarre ruling? How would you play it? By RAW and RAI or by this bizarre ruling that makes no sense?

If you want to follow this ruling please let me know why you think it is correct?

Another great reason why INAT can take a flying leap.... into a grease fire.

Its a clear that they dont want hive tyrants deepstriking on turn 2 on a 2+ and crippling 2 units with paroxysm, but what the hell is the fun in that? Also probably has a lot to do with the nerd rage over Doom of Malantai.

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.

Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

Again the RAI has remain abundantly obvious and all the arguments against have been entirely frivolous as towards the authors motivation. whilst all the RAW arguments simply boil down to the ability having even greater effect.

FlingitNow wrote: Frivolous arguments like these don't stop the RAW an RAI being clear from the rules.

RAI is never 'clear from the rules'

'What the rules probably mean but don't actually say' can be extrapolated in many cases. But what people are trying to explain to you is that this is not RAI. You can't know that it's RAI, no matter how much sense it makes as an interpretation. Quite simply because even when you ignore multiple possible interpretations of a given piece of text, you have no way of knowing (without him saying so) whether what the writer actually wrote, and what was printed, was actually what he originally intended.

If I write a rule that 'People with blue shirts can go outside' it's fairly obvious that the rule as written means that people with blue shirts can go outside. By your reasoning, since it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, the RAI is also that people with blue shirts can go outside.

But what if I actually meant to write 'red' instead of blue, and had a brainfade as I was writing it, due to being distracted by something out my window?

I intended the rule to apply to red shirts... but that's not what the rule says. So in that case, the Rule as Intended is very different to what was written in the book. But not only do you have no way of knowing that the RAI is very different, you have no way of even guessing what the rule is supposed to be. You best guess is that the rule is intended to apply to blue shirts... which is very, very wrong. It's correct by RAW, but not by RAI.


Yes, I realise that's a somewhat silly example, and probably not what is going on here. But it is an illustration of how RAI is not the same thing as 'what I think the rule is supposed to mean'

RAI is nothing to do with what you think is reasonable. It is entirely down to what the writer actually meant the rule to do... which is impossible to know unless he tells us.

No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

No basis in RAW at all and as yet nothing but frivolous claims the author is a total idiot who wrote two identical rules in different ways just because he's an idiot as to RAI. Or the "classic" they needed to say "alive" because otherwise people will think that the effects lasts after he's dead. Are we to take this means that the GK Psychic hood continues to work after the bearer has died? It doesn't specify the effect stops when the guy dies? What about Eldar Runes of warding?

FlingitNow wrote:Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

To be clear, here... I think the ability is intended to work from Reserves, and I would play that 'removed as a casualty' effectively means 'no longer alive' for the purposes of this rule.

My sole objection here is with you claiming to know the RAI, when you have no way of doing so.

FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

Again the RAI has remain abundantly obvious and all the arguments against have been entirely frivolous as towards the authors motivation. whilst all the RAW arguments simply boil down to the ability having even greater effect.

Again, what you *believe* to be RAI and what is actually RAI is not necessarily the same thing. You are not Robin or any of the other 9 people who developed the ruleset, you CANOT claimn you *know* RAI, at best you can claim what you believe to be RAI.

This is why RAW is an easier discussion than RAI.

FlingitNow wrote:No basis in RAW at all and as yet nothing but frivolous claims the author is a total idiot who wrote two identical rules in different ways just because he's an idiot as to RAI.

You're still missing the point.

The claim is not that the author actually did this. The various 'claims' are simply a way of pointing out that there are other possibilities as to what was intended.

Or the "classic" they needed to say "alive" because otherwise people will think that the effects lasts after he's dead. Are we to take this means that the GK Psychic hood continues to work after the bearer has died? It doesn't specify the effect stops when the guy dies? What about Eldar Runes of warding?

What about a unit that gains Counter-attack due to having Sicarius in the same army? Do they lose it when he dies?

That's the point. The 'While alive' is one of the better inclusions in the codex, because it actually clarifies that the ability does only work while he is alive. Which is important because there are other abilities that affect armies that do still apply after the model is dead.

RAI is never 'clear from the rules'

'What the rules probably mean but don't actually say' can be extrapolated in many cases. But what people are trying to explain to you is that this is not RAI. You can't know that it's RAI, no matter how much sense it makes as an interpretation. Quite simply because even when you ignore multiple possible interpretations of a given piece of text, you have no way of knowing (without him saying so) whether what the writer actually wrote, and what was printed, was actually what he originally intended.

If I write a rule that 'People with blue shirts can go outside' it's fairly obvious that the rule as written means that people with blue shirts can go outside. By your reasoning, since it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, the RAI is also that people with blue shirts can go outside.

But what if I actually meant to write 'red' instead of blue, and had a brainfade as I was writing it, due to being distracted by something out my window?

I intended the rule to apply to red shirts... but that's not what the rule says. So in that case, the Rule as Intended is very different to what was written in the book. But not only do you have no way of knowing that the RAI is very different, you have no way of even guessing what the rule is supposed to be. You best guess is that the rule is intended to apply to blue shirts... which is very, very wrong. It's correct by RAW, but not by RAI.


Yes, I realise that's a somewhat silly example, and probably not what is going on here. But it is an illustration of how RAI is not the same thing as 'what I think the rule is supposed to mean'

RAI is nothing to do with what you think is reasonable. It is entirely down to what the writer actually meant the rule to do... which is impossible to know unless he tells us.

I am aware of this but RAI can be clear from the rules except for in the case of a missprint or typo. Just saying it is impossible to know doesn't make it so. Whilst it is impossible for a computer to know RAI from the RAW human beings have reasoning skills and can see the bigger picture and look at the writers motivation. From this we can determine RAI beyond reasonable doubt.

Beyond reasonable doubt is all we can know about anything even Maths is not knowable as the entire axiomatic system it is based on has been proven to be flawed (either incorrect or incomplete, most mathematicians choose to believe the later as that means all current proofs hold).

All other science is based on experiments and results. Yet statistical evidence is never pure proof. Using maths we can quickly prove this I put forward the theory that all numbers are less than 1,000,000. I have tested this theory 1,000,000 times and got the correct result every time. QED. Any scientific experiment that had 1,000,000 sucessful trials would never be questioned but here the theory is obviously flawed. Likewise we can't even know what is in the text of the rule book because we could just be hallucinating, but it is reasonable to assume we are not.

Heck even asking the wirter is not "knowing" RAI as he could just be lying to us or again we could be hallucinating...

All you can know anything by is beyond reasonable doubt. Here the RAI is obvious beyond reasonable doubt as the RAW is so clear and easily laid out and other rules illustrate how they would have worded it had the rule worked the way INAT is ruling. whjilst we see lots of similar rules worded differently in different and sometimes the same text. never have I seen 2 identical rules worded so differently which is what INAT would have us beleive which is not a reasonable position to hold.

FlingitNow wrote:
The problem with this "argument" and why it is frivolous is you are saying that models can't effect games from reserves unless specifically stated on one hand whilst claiming the rule needs to states the Hive tyrants effects no longer take place after he is dead. I'd say allowing aura effects to continue after a model has died is a far bigger can of worms than them doing so from reserves. It is obvious to any reaosnable person that aura effects and special rules of models do not effect play after they are dead unless specified otherwise far more so than when they are in reserve.

Essentially you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Again I have to ask what was the motivation for this ruling?

I don't think you quite understood my previous post. I was never saying that rules need to specify they stop working when a model dies or else they don't.

I was simply saying that is one possible reason that the author *could* have included that wording in his rule.

There are indeed special rules that most people regularly play affect the army even when the model with the special rule has died...Vulkan's special rule that affect's his army's weapons or the improved Fenrisian Wolves Ld in an army with a character with the 'Saga of the Wolfkin' are a couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head.


And again, there IS a need for a ruling preventing models who are in reserve from affecting the game unless their rule specifies otherwise. There are LOTS of crazy special rules in the game and not all of them have a range or require line of sight. Without such a ruling, these abilities can indeed affect the game while the character remains safely in Reserve...something that most players agree should not be allowed.


So you ask what the motivation was behind the ruling. I can honestly tell you it all came down to being consistent with the ruling we had already made regarding models in Reserve using their abilities to affect the game. Is 'while alive' enough specificity to indicate that the ability is still utilized while the model is not in play? Those who thought it was voted 'yes', those who thought it needed to be more specific (such as with the Eldar Autarch's rule) voted 'no'.

Completely honest here...how powerful the ability was or not did not ever actually come up in this discussion. It did when we were voting on the similar Imperial Guard abilities in the IG codex, but not this time.

Ravenous D wrote:
Another great reason why INAT can take a flying leap.... into a grease fire.

Its a clear that they dont want hive tyrants deepstriking on turn 2 on a 2+ and crippling 2 units with paroxysm, but what the hell is the fun in that? Also probably has a lot to do with the nerd rage over Doom of Malantai.

You're free to believe what you'd like but keep in mind we've already been accused in another thread on Dakka of having some Tyranid bias in that they believe all of our rulings are favorable to the Tyranids...so we're apparently doing something right to convince everybody that we're biased in both directions.

Like I said, the ruling on whether or not the ability could be used in reserves had absolutely nothing to do with the power level of the Tyranids, but rather hinged completely upon whether or not we felt the wording in the rule was specific enough to allow a model out of play to still utilize his ability and affect the game, especially when considering the specificity used for a similar power in the Eldar codex.

As for not allowing the abilities to be cumulative, well that just comes from the fact that GW ruled the same way on the IG abilities and it stands to reason they're going to do the same thing again, so why would we bother ruling the other way when they're just going to change it?

What about a unit that gains Counter-attack due to having Sicarius in the same army? Do they lose it when he dies?

Read the rule the unit gains the ability at no addition cost it is not something Sicarius is doing turn on turn like the reserve bonus again you come up with a frivolous comparison. It is not an aura effect it is a gift for wnat of a better word. The reserve bonus is clearly an aura effect something that is effected every turn not an addition to a particular unit.

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

FlingitNow wrote:The reserve bonus is clearly an aura effect something that is effected every turn not an addition to a particular unit.

What? Seriously, You are very close to becoming the first person I have had to put on Ignore.

How is it an Aura? And how is any of this "Clear", considering the MOUNTAINS of threads on it?

Tri wrote:FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of ruling of theirs i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

In hindsight, the question of why did we rule this way and your reasoning behind why you think it should change should probably have been posted in the INAT announcement thread in the News and Rumors forum or in the FAQ submission thread at the top of this forum.

Then, the poll should have been posted without the biased wording so you could have used that as a basis to help prove your point. As it stands now the poll results are pretty hard to utilize and the thread itself has turned into a discussion about why the ruling was made...

...with that said, I don't think he's bashing the INAT and I think people putting forth reasoned arguments about why they think a ruling is wrong can only help make the INAT a more useful tool.

On the +1 not stacking whilst this is against the RAW the RAI is not clear as the IG ruling has proven, though notably Autrachs were ruled the other way. It is a judgement call and I would not have a problem with anyone making the ruling you did make.

I am not opposed to any sensible logical rulings and I know you guys put a lot of effort into this and it is of great benefit to the community.

I also think you;ve missunderstood my posts:

I was simply saying that is one possible reason that the author *could* have included that wording in his rule.

Yes it is but not a reasonable one. Liek me saying the +1 on the reserves was maybe written by mistake and what he meant was that Tyranids auto win on a 2+ wit infinite re-rolls. That is one possible reason for the rule. Just not a reasonable one.

And again, there IS a need for a ruling preventing models who are in reserve from affecting the game unless their rule specifies otherwise. There are LOTS of crazy special rules in the game and not all of them have a range or require line of sight. Without such a ruling, these abilities can indeed affect the game while the character remains safely in Reserve...something that most players agree should not be allowed.

Again fair enough, likewise a ruling on aura effects lasting after a model has died. Army wide bonus' are different likewise unit upgrades are different they effect the unit composition not an ongoing bonus like the reserves bonus.

You're free to believe what you'd like but keep in mind we've already been accused in another thread on Dakka of having some Tyranid bias in that they believe all of our rulings are favorable to the Tyranids...so we're apparently doing something right to convince everybody that we're biased in both directions.

That ruling made one unit work properly rather than being entirely useless (and was consistent with previous GW rulings). This ruling knobbles the entire concept of the spod army that is the biggest addition to this codex. With no DP assault rule this is the only way the all DS army can function in any sort of manner. With this ruling you have essentially thrown the Mycetic spore out of the window and reduced Hive Commander to 1 unit of troops gains outflank...

You are claiming that 2 identical rules are written entirely differently for no reason other than you don't wnat one of the rules to work the way it is written.

so does any one have an answer, or a link to this question?

regardless of whether or not its bias still leaves the question?

does the tyrant get the +1 reserve if he is

A.) on the table
or
B.) alive ( awesome job GW for your vague connotations)

i guess the real question is what they mean by "alive" ?

I assume that any special modifiers to rolls coming from a unit must be in play and on the table unless specifically stated in rules, errata etc.

however:
I havent followed this rule lately, but on the 4th ed of lysander for imperial fists - teleport phalanx, he got a bonus to DS all terminator units at once. i know this isn't a very good example, other than he uses this rule while in reserve- meaning "alive" but not on the table and not in play; yet. maybe i am misinformed or it has been re-iterated later in a FAQ to be more clear. (not to mention we are in 5th ed)

even though i might get crap for this, i wouldn't personally use the + to rolls in this instance, unless he is in play and on the table. a commander cannot judge the outcome of a battle unless he is present and involved in a battle? even if its from an observational stand point - still involved in battle plans and whatnot.

this is only an opinion and i don't think i am right, just looking for a correct answer

thank you

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

If I could change the polling or remove it I would. I am not bashing INAT I am "bashing" this particular ruling.

...because you believe you know RAI, yet you cannot.

The reasoning has been explained and makes perfect sense to me as to why they came to that conclusion - and it was even said it was a split vote.

There doesnt seem a huge point in continuing this thread, and creating a new poll, free fo the author bias, may not help as it is too fresh - you may get spoiler votes.

yakface wrote:
...with that said, I don't think he's bashing the INAT and I think people putting forth reasoned arguments about why they think a ruling is wrong can only help make the INAT a more useful tool.

fair enough ... just doesn't seem the best way to deal with this. Personally i would have asked for people views on INAT ruling rather then have any poll

Ok... Possibly a poll do you agree with the INAT ruling Yes, No. ... But even then it doesn't seem to be serving any purpose

FlingitNow wrote:

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but that's only if it comes up)

If I could change the polling or remove it I would. I am not bashing INAT I am "bashing" this particular ruling.

Ah well Don't think I've ever bothered trying polling ... you asking a MOD to remove it?

Ah well Don't think I've ever bothered trying polling ... you asking a MOD to remove it?

Yeah I'm happy for a MOD to remove the poll I don't think it serves a purpose and every one took it the wrong way...

I think that one of the problems is that people who don't agree with this ruling are being framed as arguing from a position of RAI. This really isn't the case.

If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

If the Tyrant is in reserve, has it lost all of it's wounds? No. The ability functions.

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

Monster Rain wrote:I think that one of the problems is that people who don't agree with this ruling are being framed as arguing from a position of RAI. This really isn't the case.

It's not even that. The first option claims to have a monopoly on both RAW and RAI. I'd happily vote for a RAI over RAW option in a poll. -This- poll, however, has 2 options. The first is implied to be 'by the rules- both as written, and as intended' while the second is 'some schlock the INAT made up.'

Gee, I wonder which one the author supports?


A well-written poll should not make one choice seem the 'obvious' or 'correct' choice.

FlingitNow wrote:I am aware of this but RAI can be clear from the rules except for in the case of a missprint or typo.

Or an oversight on the part of the writer, as in the case of the Inquisitor/Assassin issue.

And that's entirely the point... Since we can't know without the writer telling us if something is a misprint, or a typo, or an oversight we can't, without some amount of doubt, make a claim to know RAI.

We can see what the rules say. but since we don't have all of the background information behind why the rule was written as it was, the intention behind them is never going to be anything more than a guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

We've already established that the RAW fails on the 'alive' thing. There's no need to beat it into the ground, Gwar.

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

Gwar! I'm going to set a good example for you and directly answer a question.

Page 6, under Wounds. And Page 24, under Removing Casualties. Oh, and cap it off by reading page 26's bit on Multiple Wound Models. "Dead" is universally understood in this context to mean(and constantly used interchangeably with) "Removed as a casualty" and so "Alive" would mean "Not having been Removed as a Casualty." If it's still unclear after that there is no helping you.

Or an oversight on the part of the writer, as in the case of the Inquisitor/Assassin issue.

And that's entirely the point... Since we can't know without the writer telling us if something is a misprint, or a typo, or an oversight we can't, without some amount of doubt, make a claim to know RAI.

We can see what the rules say. but since we don't have all of the background information behind why the rule was written as it was, the intention behind them is never going to be anything more than a guess.

How can we know what the rules say? We could be hallucinating or our copies could have a miss-print. So we can't see what the rules say as we have no way of knowing we are not hallucinating.

I claim to know RAI as much as I can know anything. there always has to be some doubt about anything because nothing can be known.

So yes I do know RAI as in the meaning of being as certain as it is possible to be given that your definition of knowing shows no boundary and thus we know nothing. Therefore the word knowing becomes meaningless.

I know RAI beyond all reasonable doubt. Becaus ethe argument against are: "they wrote the exact same rule completely different in 2 places in the codex because they are idiots and the way the wrote it under lictors is what is right". This is a nonsense argument. Just like trying to claim Bjorn invulnerable save is intentionally useless. the other part of the argument is "well they put in alive there because otherwise we assume it would stil work when he's dead, however we won;t assume it works when he's in reserve unless it expressly says even though it does we'll ignore it because they are clearly clearing up the power being used when he's dead..." again a total nonsense argument.

Until I see someone come up with a plausible reason why a writer would write the same rule so completely differently on two pages of the same book then RAI being anything other than the RAW is a frivolous and ludicrous position to hold. Just as it would be me saying the rule meant to say Tyranids win on a 2+ with infinite re-rolls. We all know GW and their rule righting it is just not very clear. This interpretation has just as much merit as the INAT FAQs "interpretation" of the rule.

FlingitNow wrote: Becaus ethe argument against are: "they wrote the exact same rule completely different in 2 places in the codex because they are idiots and the way the wrote it under lictors is what is right". This is a nonsense argument.

It's also not the argument. Nobody said that they did it because they were idiots.

the other part of the argument is "well they put in alive there because otherwise we assume it would stil work when he's dead, however we won;t assume it works when he's in reserve unless it expressly says even though it does we'll ignore it because they are clearly clearing up the power being used when he's dead..." again a total nonsense argument.

And again, not the actual argument.

This interpretation has just as much merit as the INAT FAQs "interpretation" of the rule.

I don't recall anyone saying that your interpretation lacked merit. I happen to agree with it.

The argument is about you claiming that it is RAI.



But you're clearly not interested in sensible discussion on this, and have made up your mind that your interpretation of the rule is the only possible version that the writer intended... so rather than attempt to continue a discussion with someone who is determined to twist things all out of proportion and original meaning, I think I'm done here.

wow... and i thought the poll about dark angels using new wargear had some biased poll answers but this one takes the cake. i'll vote in the new thread about the same thing.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

Gwar! I'm going to set a good example for you and directly answer a question.

Page 6, under Wounds. And Page 24, under Removing Casualties. Oh, and cap it off by reading page 26's bit on Multiple Wound Models. "Dead" is universally understood in this context to mean(and constantly used interchangeably with) "Removed as a casualty" and so "Alive" would mean "Not having been Removed as a Casualty." If it's still unclear after that there is no helping you.

BOOM! Gwar got served!

Klawz wrote: BOOM! Gwar got served!

What :O

I've been reading those pages but no where does it say the only option is that the model is dead. It actually says it might be so badly wounded it can't fight any longer.
It says that on both page 6 (so badly hurt it can't fight) and 24 (knocked unconscious, too injured, incapacitated in some other way).

Wouldn't say he got served.....

SuperioR wrote:

Klawz wrote: BOOM! Gwar got served!

What :O

I've been reading those pages but no where does it say the only option is that the model is dead. It actually says it might be so badly wounded it can't fight any longer.
It says that on both page 6 (so badly hurt it can't fight) and 24 (knocked unconscious, too injured, incapacitated in some other way).

Wouldn't say he got served.....

Therefore, if "Dead" doesn't equal "lost all of its wounds," then the converse does not work, either.

FlingitNow wrote:How is it bias? I've put nothing in the polling question that is negative to either oppinion. Do you follow RAW and RAI or do you follow INAT?

You obviously are against RAW in this instance I presume?

Biased as hell. You're forcing the assumptions of RAW and RAI onto the person answering the question. Could just as easily make it

1) Agree with me, I'm right.
2) Disagree with me, admit your wrong, and don't know how to read rules.

No Bias? Funny angry man.