So if I use "terrify" from the BRB to make a flying monstrous creature lose fearless while its swooping... then used fear the darkness to make them fail a LD check... How far would they fall back?

If it is swooping, i am not sure, but if it is in it's glide mode, it acts exactly like a 'jump' monstrous creature, so therefore it would follow the rules for 'jump' units for falling back

thisisnotpancho wrote:If it is swooping, i am not sure, but if it is in it's glide mode, it acts exactly like a 'jump' monstrous creature, so therefore it would follow the rules for 'jump' units for falling back

see... I think this is something the GW rules guys missed... I'm not sure how to play it, but it happened in my last game....

Hm... come to think of it all the FMCs are fearless. I'd just say 3d6, as nothing I know of falls back FARTHER than that.

A Swooping FMC is said to "move exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature, with the following exceptions and clarifications"

the Jump rules tell us "Units that are described as 'moving like' Jump units follow all the rules for Jump units, and use the same special rules"

so a Swooping FMC falls back like Jump units, i.e 3d6 inches.

3d6. Pg 425 is a nifty chart of all moves for each unit type if you need quick reference.

Fragile wrote:3d6. Pg 425 is a nifty chart of all moves for each unit type if you need quick reference.

So there is. Let's see...FMC (Swooping)...ahh here we go, Fall Back Distance "n/a".

Apparently FMC's can never Fall Back. Ever.

 Happyjew wrote:

Fragile wrote:3d6. Pg 425 is a nifty chart of all moves for each unit type if you need quick reference.

So there is. Let's see...FMC (Swooping)...ahh here we go, Fall Back Distance "n/a".

Apparently FMC's can never Fall Back. Ever.

Yeah, was about to bring this up, if they're gliding they'd fall back like a jump unit, but apparently a swooping monstrous creature cannot fall back under any circumstances, according to the rules as they are written.

Except page 49 says they move exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature with exceptions blah blah. So logically they'd fall back 3D6 like other jump units.

If we look at the table however, the "N/A" would indicate it can't fall back, and according to the fallback rules if you have to fall back and can't, you are destroyed.

Fun

HIWPI? 3D6.

Meh i expect its a simple omission by GW ... till its FAQ I would play that a swooping MC can't be hit by "terrify" unless they are gliding or grounded.

Terrify is a Malediction used in the Movement phase. It doesnt roll to hit using the Psykers BS, correct? Therefore, it cannot target a Swooping FMC.

This was FAQ'd a little while back. Only powers which roll to hit can target a Swooping FMC or Flyer (i.e. Witchfires by and large), and must hit on 6's due to Hard To Hit.
For example, Objuration Mechanicum cannot hit a Flyer.

 HerbaciousT wrote:
Terrify is a Malediction used in the Movement phase. It doesnt roll to hit using the Psykers BS, correct? Therefore, it cannot target a Swooping FMC.

This was FAQ'd a little while back. Only powers which roll to hit can target a Swooping FMC or Flyer (i.e. Witchfires by and large), and must hit on 6's due to Hard To Hit.
For example, Objuration Mechanicum cannot hit a Flyer.

The problem is, Terrify doesn't inflict hits and that FAQ question (rightly so) references zooming flyers and swooping flyers being 'hit' by attacks. Unfortunately that leaves a number of different interpretations of that particular FAQ ruling, especially given that there are clearly SOME exceptions (such as Imotekh's lightning).

So IMHO, all that FAQ ruling references are attacks that actually hit/cause damage on the unit. Other types of effects, such as puppet master, etc, still affect zooming flyers and swooping FMCs just fine. In the case of Objuration Mechanicum, for example, I believe that the auto-haywire hit does nothing against a zooming slyer/swooping FMC but the other effects of the power are applied as normal.

I think Terrify can hit them still...

Terrify is a Malediction, it looks like the FAQ ruled out only Wicthfire powers that don't roll to hit.

 yakface wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:
Terrify is a Malediction used in the Movement phase. It doesnt roll to hit using the Psykers BS, correct? Therefore, it cannot target a Swooping FMC.

This was FAQ'd a little while back. Only powers which roll to hit can target a Swooping FMC or Flyer (i.e. Witchfires by and large), and must hit on 6's due to Hard To Hit.
For example, Objuration Mechanicum cannot hit a Flyer.

The problem is, Terrify doesn't inflict hits and that FAQ question (rightly so) references zooming flyers and swooping flyers being 'hit' by attacks. Unfortunately that leaves a number of different interpretations of that particular FAQ ruling, especially given that there are clearly SOME exceptions (such as Imotekh's lightning).

So IMHO, all that FAQ ruling references are attacks that actually hit/cause damage on the unit. Other types of effects, such as puppet master, etc, still affect zooming flyers and swooping FMCs just fine. In the case of Objuration Mechanicum, for example, I believe that the auto-haywire hit does nothing against a zooming slyer/swooping FMC but the other effects of the power are applied as normal.

You have a point. I have found the part of the FAQ I was recalling:

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’troll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas

It depends on if we consider a Malediction an 'Attack' or not. It says that if it doesnt roll to hit, it cant hit a flyer. Ill be honest, Im not sure which side I come down on. In a game id just use the 'Most Important Rule'.

 HerbaciousT wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:
Terrify is a Malediction used in the Movement phase. It doesnt roll to hit using the Psykers BS, correct? Therefore, it cannot target a Swooping FMC.

This was FAQ'd a little while back. Only powers which roll to hit can target a Swooping FMC or Flyer (i.e. Witchfires by and large), and must hit on 6's due to Hard To Hit.
For example, Objuration Mechanicum cannot hit a Flyer.

The problem is, Terrify doesn't inflict hits and that FAQ question (rightly so) references zooming flyers and swooping flyers being 'hit' by attacks. Unfortunately that leaves a number of different interpretations of that particular FAQ ruling, especially given that there are clearly SOME exceptions (such as Imotekh's lightning).

So IMHO, all that FAQ ruling references are attacks that actually hit/cause damage on the unit. Other types of effects, such as puppet master, etc, still affect zooming flyers and swooping FMCs just fine. In the case of Objuration Mechanicum, for example, I believe that the auto-haywire hit does nothing against a zooming slyer/swooping FMC but the other effects of the power are applied as normal.

You have a point. I have found the part of the FAQ I was recalling:

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’troll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas

It depends on if we consider a Malediction an 'Attack' or not. It says that if it doesnt roll to hit, it cant hit a flyer. Ill be honest, Im not sure which side I come down on. In a game id just use the 'Most Important Rule'.

It doesn't depend on that at all actually:
Is it a maelstrom, nova, or beam? No. Is it a weapon (regardless of if it needs to roll to hit the answer is the same here)? No. The FAQ does not mention "attacks" in the question, so what is and isn't an attack is irrelevant to the answer. The answer covers maelstroms, novas, beams, and weapons that do not roll to hit, not anything that could be considered an attack that does not roll to hit.

The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

Baktru wrote:
Except page 49 says they move exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature with exceptions blah blah. So logically they'd fall back 3D6 like other jump units.

If we look at the table however, the "N/A" would indicate it can't fall back, and according to the fallback rules if you have to fall back and can't, you are destroyed.

Fun

HIWPI? 3D6.

You are misquoting. The part where it acts like a jump unit is specific to when it is gliding and has no exceptions. The swooping rules are not a modification of the jump rules, and you are never told to treat them as such.

My call would be: It fell back into the sky where it feels safe, it is content to fly around up there safely. If it returns to a more accessible height (gliding) during the duration of the effect, it will be subject to falling back as per it's rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

if you look at the mechanics of flying I am in the camp of they can't fall back. flying critters can only move forward or turn up to 90 and move. A fall back doesn't necessarily fell right.

Even if you choose to define maledictions as attacks despite the way the word "attack" is used in the rulebook (shooting attack, close combat attack, psychic shooting attack, malediction attack), terrify doesn't cause hits and is thus unaffected by hard to hit.

tgf wrote:
if you look at the mechanics of flying I am in the camp of they can't fall back. flying critters can only move forward or turn up to 90 and move. A fall back doesn't necessarily fell right.

So what you're saying is if swooping FMCs can fall back the game breaks if they travelled at more than a 90 degree angle from the player's board edge, so we should take the option that doesn't result in breaking the game and say that they can't?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Even if you choose to define maledictions as attacks despite the way the word "attack" is used in the rulebook (shooting attack, close combat attack, psychic shooting attack, malediction attack), terrify doesn't cause hits and is thus unaffected by hard to hit.

Not true. Attacks that do not roll to hit are forbidden from targeting.

If you define it as an attack, is it an attack? Yes.
Does it roll to hit? No

cryhavok wrote:

Baktru wrote:
Except page 49 says they move exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature with exceptions blah blah. So logically they'd fall back 3D6 like other jump units.

If we look at the table however, the "N/A" would indicate it can't fall back, and according to the fallback rules if you have to fall back and can't, you are destroyed.

Fun

HIWPI? 3D6.

You are misquoting. The part where it acts like a jump unit is specific to when it is gliding and has no exceptions. The swooping rules are not a modification of the jump rules, and you are never told to treat them as such.

My call would be: It fell back into the sky where it feels safe, it is content to fly around up there safely. If it returns to a more accessible height (gliding) during the duration of the effect, it will be subject to falling back as per it's rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

I wasn't mis-quoting. Gliding says an FMC moves exactly like a JMC. Swooping starts off stating the same and then adds, with the following exceptions etc. It has no exceptions regarding Fallback hence the Fallback of a swooping FMC according to the rules on that page is, 3D6 like other jump units. Only he "N/A" in the table at the back of the book messes this up.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what Raven said.

All examples of things that cannot hit Swooping FMC's in that FAQ are used in the Shooting Phase. It specifically lists Maelstroms, Novas and Beams but is silent on Maledictions.

Also the general rules on psychic powers do not mention the word attack, nor does the entry for maledictions. Witchfire does have attack in it, as in "psychic shooting attacks".

I would say that Maledictions therefore do not fall under that FAQ and can target flyers.

On a similar note, does an FMC that is swooping near an enemy Doom of Malan'Tai get affected by Spirit Leech?

Well it would have to be a FCC from the chaos mariness codex as the ones from the daemon codex iirc do not fail morale tests.

Baktru wrote:
On a similar note, does an FMC that is swooping near an enemy Doom of Malan'Tai get affected by Spirit Leech?

Yes. Even if it's an attack it doesn't target so being forbidden to target is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:
Well it would have to be a FCC from the chaos mariness codex as the ones from the daemon codex iirc do not fail morale tests.

Or a FMC from C:Tyranids after Fearless is removed.

 HerbaciousT wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up. I am not the one pretending here. The rules are not, this, this, this, and whatever else you decide gets added to it. It is just this, this, and this. GW does not need to state that you can't add things, because no one but them is allowed to anyway.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up. I am not the one pretending here. The rules are not, this, this, this, and whatever else you decide gets added to it. It is just this, this, and this. GW does not need to state that you can't add things, because no one but them is allowed to anyway.

So your assertion is that "This includes" is an exhaustive list?

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up. I am not the one pretending here. The rules are not, this, this, this, and whatever else you decide gets added to it. It is just this, this, and this. GW does not need to state that you can't add things, because no one but them is allowed to anyway.

So your assertion is that "This includes" is an exhaustive list?

No, that is you're inferance. My assertion is that you can not just decide to apply rules to things they do not refer too.

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw? You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

cryhavok wrote:
If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up.

Actually no, the BRB does not define attack. It does define Attack, but that is something totally different.

The BRB does not define every word in the BRB, so we have to use the dictionary definition of attack.

Maledictions fit the dictionary definition of attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up.

Actually no, the BRB does not define attack. It does define Attack, but that is something totally different.

The BRB does not define every word in the BRB, so we have to use the dictionary definition of attack.

Maledictions fit the dictionary definition of attack.

So does deployment, and many other things. Everything in the BRB that is an attack, is stated to be so.

Edit: multiple definitions, and context muddy the possibility of actually coming to an agreement on the definition of any word. I do not believe a malediction is intended to be an attack as far as the rules are concerned. I also don't think either of us will sway the other on which context/definition should be used, so I'm not getting any further into the is a malediction an attack arguement. I'll stick to the other arguement about wheather or not you are allowed to add to the things GW puts out and still call it RAW, that I was discussing with the other guy.

cryhavok wrote:
No, that is you're inferance. My assertion is that you can not just decide to apply rules to things they do not refer too.

I'm not.

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ.
The FAQ does refer to attacks and therefore anything that is an attack that does not roll to hit cannot target a Flyer.

I agree with cryhavok, a malediction does not fit the defination of attack as it relates to 40k. Casting a malediction or blessing both do not cause hits and are not subject to the faq pertaining to flyer hard to hit rules.

Note that the Hard to Hit FAQ has nothing to do with causing hits.

Well, not just causing hits.

rigeld2 wrote:

You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ. The FAQ does refer to attacks and therefore anything that is an attack that does not roll to hit cannot target a Flyer.

So if this is the case, RAW does not cover it at all, and we are down to interpretations of intent... a thing that can't be proven either way. Their intent as to what qualifies as an attack, as far as this ruling goes, could be argued to be the list they provided of what the ruling applies to. It could also be defined as many other things.

Here is dictionary.com's definitions:

at·tack
[uh-tak] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.

If you apply every definition of attack you could to that ruling, the effect would be, nothing can effect a swooping FMC unless it has an attack roll. Personally, I don't think that is what is intended.

So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

You are claiming I am saying things I am not.

Also, do you or do you not agree that we are in the realm on interpretation now?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

You are claiming I am saying things I am not.

It's either an exhaustive list or its not. You're arguing against it including things not explicitly listed, meaning you think it is an exhaustive list.

Also, do you or do you not agree that we are in the realm on interpretation now?

There's 2 points here - 1) Are Maledictions "attacks" with regards to the HtH FAQ. 2) Is the list of things in the FAQ exhaustive or not.

I have no opinion on #1. #2 I'm not arguing intent - rather its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

To support my belief that not everything that could be defined as an attack, should be defined as such for rules purposes, I would point out the FAQ that says vector strikes can hit swooping FMCs. It is a special ability that causes hits automatically without rolling to hit. It was ruled to be able to be used on other FMCs. It could easily be defined as an attack. You know what it is not? It is not one of the things the FAQ mentions specifically, that could not be used against FMCs.

Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

rigeld2 wrote:

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

If you can not add things to RAW, any list that is RAW can not be added to. You yourself say that you can not add to raw. Can a list that you can not add to be anything other than exhaustive?

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

This statement is wrong. Two words in a sentence can be brought to mean almost anything. To say it "cannot" mean something is false.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

Only your word says it is an exception. Mine says it is precedent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote: I'm not arguing intent

When you say "If you consider" it strongly suggests you are arguing intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

If you can not add things to RAW, any list that is RAW can not be added to. You yourself say that you can not add to raw. Can a list that you can not add to be anything other than exhaustive?

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

This statement is wrong. Two words in a sentence can be brought to mean almost anything. To say it "cannot" mean something is false.

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

Only your word says it is an exception. Mine says it is precedent.

Precedent for what?
For GW to make other exceptions? Yes, agreed, GW can change whatever rules they want.
And it's actually a clarification (my bad) as Vector Strike gives permission to target a Flyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
When you say "If you consider" it strongly suggests you are arguing intent.

You misinterpreted then. I don't care if a Malediction is an attack or not RAW and I'm not arguing that point at all.

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

Proper syntax for that sentence would include the word "Only" or some other limiter.
Does the FAQ include a word like that or are you misrepresenting the argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

See the last bit of my post that got added before you finished writing.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.
If you're not arguing that the list is exhaustive, what are you arguing? It can't be kinda-sorta exhaustive; it either is or it isn't. Which is it?

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

See the last bit of my post that got added before you finished writing.

Back at ya. Sentence structure is important.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

Proper syntax for that sentence would include the word "Only" or some other limiter.
Does the FAQ include a word like that or are you misrepresenting the argument?

I am not misrepresenting the argument. This example is a list presented the same way the one in the FAQ is. I did not put the word only in there, just as it is not in the FAQ. I have seen signs like that posted. Proper syntax or not, would you be allowed to go through the door in that situation? You have not answered that.

BTW proper syntax does not require the word only in that sentence, unless you are assuming that only is meant, something you say

cannot

be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you want to get into what is required by proper sytax, you are going to have to get on GW editor's case there, as they have failed, so miserably it is pathetic, to use proper syntax in most of their products.

As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.

I am arguing exactly what i mean to say. Changing the words, changes the meaning. You are the one arguing syntax now, so you should be familiar with this concept. i suspect you are, and I suspect you have a motive behind trying to change what i am saying to something different, but similar. If I didn't post it, I didn't mean it, and i didn't intend to say it. That will not change, so anytime you get the urge to say, "So you are saying X", just copy paste the last sentence right underneath it for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

So we can talk about intent now?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.

I am arguing exactly what i mean to say. Changing the words, changes the meaning. You are the one arguing syntax now, so you should be familiar with this concept. i suspect you are, and I suspect you have a motive behind trying to change what i am saying to something different, but similar. If I didn't post it, I didn't mean it, and i didn't intend to say it. That will not change, so anytime you get the urge to say, "So you are saying X", just copy paste the last sentence right underneath it for me.

Simple question, please just a one word answer since that's literally all it takes:
Is the list exhaustive as written or not?

rigeld2 wrote:
As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

So we can talk about intent now?

I've never forbidden it, I'm just not interested in it.

The problem is that there are two, nested lists.

This includes {weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for [maelstroms, beams, and
novas.]}

While the outer list (denoted above with braces {}), is most certainly not exhaustive due to using "This includes", there's no indication that the inner list regarding Psychic Powers ([] above) is anything but exhaustive.

Actually chrysis, its much simpler than that. Are maledictions to be considered an attack?

The rest of rigeld2 and cryhavoks discussion really isn't material. Personally, I don't consider them an attack and the fmc needs to fall back. 3d6 seems appropriate.

You know, I just thought of another funny question relating to this. If a swooping FMC happens to fall back to the board edge, will it enter ongoing reserves or count as destroyed?

I not sure but he might actually go into ongoing reserves.

I think the orc truck rule was when it wasn't size restricted so you could make a ramshackle orc truck out of a whole bunch of different trucks and assault out it from your deploy zone since it stretched across the board.

It's quite likely that a Flying Monstrous Creature will leave the board whilst Swooping. Indeed it can, unlike other units, deliberately do so. tf this happens, whether deliberate or not, the unit is said to have left combat airspace - it then enters Ongoing Reserves

I'd say that's a pretty strong argument for it entering Ongoing Reserves if it falls back off the board edge.

Also, since the Swooping rules do say "moves exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature" I'd say you can force it to fall back, the question now is: how far are you allowed to pivot?

Also, rigeld2, they're not saying it's an exhaustive list, and even if they were, "it's not an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions are covered" is equally as invalid an argument as "it is an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions aren't covered". Well actually that's not entirely true, the second one would be valid if it were an exhaustive list, while the first line of reasoning is invalid either way.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"it's not an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions can be covered"

Fixed that for you with the point I'm actually making.

cryhavok wrote:
Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

You are a member of the National Guard, having been mobilized in response to some natural disaster (tornado, hurricane, etc) are you allowed to go through the door?

 undertow wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

You are a member of the National Guard, having been mobilized in response to some natural disaster (tornado, hurricane, etc) are you allowed to go through the door?

No, and thats why you throw a flash bang in first and come out shooting. (or is that just counter strike)


Look rules don't cover this. Stop fussing over if you can hit it. A gliding model is perfectly acceptable as a target but still does not have permission to fallback. Even if it can fallback there's the question of what happens at the board edge is it destroy and/or placed in reserve.

There is no RAW here ... at the moment the best we can do is discussed how we think it should be played.

I still say FMC that are swooping don't fall back based on the flavor and rules regarding normal movement for them. They fail a ld test and stay put. Next turn they need to test to regroup, and would become gliding based on the regroup roll. Its a rare occurance this doesn't break the game an essentially takes the FMC out of play aside from shooting in its next turn.

HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

That would probably work also, now what if he flies off the table while falling back? Does he go into continuing reserves, or is he gone?

tgf wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

That would probably work also, now what if he flies off the table while falling back? Does he go into continuing reserves, or is he gone?

The rules for going off the board edge while swooping specifically state they go into ongoing reserves even if it wasn't deliberate, so I'd say they go into ongoing reserves.

Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

power last a turn ... then its fearless again. So it would auto regroup before it comes back.

 Tri wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

power last a turn ... then its fearless again. So it would auto regroup before it comes back.

That only applies if the FMC is fearless of course.

any non Fearless FMC's would need to test to regroup before moving normally.

How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

To the best of my knowledge...at the moment one - CSM Daemon Prince (with Wings).

The rulebook explicitly states you can't move units off the table intentionally but obviously this okay for flyers and FMC. Use a little common sense... It can go a long way.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.

I am arguing exactly what i mean to say. Changing the words, changes the meaning. You are the one arguing syntax now, so you should be familiar with this concept. i suspect you are, and I suspect you have a motive behind trying to change what i am saying to something different, but similar. If I didn't post it, I didn't mean it, and i didn't intend to say it. That will not change, so anytime you get the urge to say, "So you are saying X", just copy paste the last sentence right underneath it for me.

Simple question, please just a one word answer since that's literally all it takes:
Is the list exhaustive as written or not?

rigeld2 wrote:
As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

So we can talk about intent now?

I've never forbidden it, I'm just not interested in it.

Okay, first off, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Had a camping trip that ended up being cut short, so I'm back sooner than I thought. anyway:

I can not answer that with a yes or no answer, because it is not nearly that simple. Things rarely are. My answer to that depends on whether or not it "could" be read as either way, a possibility you have denied several times. So My answer is that I believe it can be read either way, and once you go there, you are discussing what they intended it to mean, a discussion that you have stated you are uninterested in. I have shown that a list such as that could be intended that way, even if it didn't use perfect syntax. As you and I both know GW doesn't have the best quality editors, an argument in this direction would also lead to a discussion about what the author intended.

Also as a note, if our little side discussion would be considered derailing the thread (i'm not sure about it myself), I would be happy to continue this in PMs, as I am finding the debate interesting.

 Happyjew wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

To the best of my knowledge...at the moment one - CSM Daemon Prince (with Wings).

I just took a look at my digital CSM codex and it says 'Fearless' under the special rules section for the CSM Daemon Prince

Yes, not sure why you thought differently - it was fearless in the 4th eddition book as well.

Cryhavok - you didnt show that it made an exhaustive list, though. Strict reading shows it can be an inexhaustive list, which you denied was possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
which you denied was possible.

I did not deny that it was possible, In fact my last post stated my belief that it could be read both ways, depending on interpretation.

Except that you cannot read the list as exhaustive, as the list is written. Grammatically, following the rules of the language, the list was non-exhaustive.

You denied this was the case.

cryhavok wrote:
I have shown that a list such as that could be intended that way, even if it didn't use perfect syntax. As you and I both know GW doesn't have the best quality editors, an argument in this direction would also lead to a discussion about what the author intended.

And my point is that the intent isn't really relevant - the words as they're written are not exhaustive.

And you started out not addressing intent, rather you argued that the list was exhaustive RAW.

cryhavok wrote:The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

cryhavok wrote: Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

cryhavok wrote:When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

Are you now moving to a RAI argument?

Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

The third quote you had, I was in error when I stated, without qualification, that adding things would be making up rules. When I wrote it, I was assuming that not every exception would need to be stated, and as I said I was in error. It would have been more correct to have added the qualifications I later did (as seen in the fourth quote)

cryhavok wrote:
Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

... Which is exactly what I said. I said that if a malediction was an attack it would be included. You disagreed saying that I couldn't add to that list.

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

When I say one thing, and you disagree with it then and now agree with it it's pretty impossible to figure out what you're trying to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

Here, I've even quoted the post where you exactly claimed it was exhaustive by saying "Adding things to that list is making up rules"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that you cannot read the list as exhaustive, as the list is written. Grammatically, following the rules of the language, the list was non-exhaustive.

You denied this was the case.

If you want to go through the BRB and correct every grammatical/syntax error GW put in there and publish a new, correct one, I would find this a valid argument. Until that is the case though, it's not really something that would hold up in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

... Which is exactly what I said. I said that if a malediction was an attack it would be included. You disagreed saying that I couldn't add to that list.

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

When I say one thing, and you disagree with it then and now agree with it it's pretty impossible to figure out what you're trying to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

Here, I've even quoted the post where you exactly claimed it was exhaustive by saying "Adding things to that list is making up rules"

I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

Good job this isnt court. However you are clearly now making an intent argument, when initially you claimed a RAW argument. Given your own statements are themselves contradictory, figruing out what youre claiming is getting difficult.

Reread Rigelds quotes from you, in hopefully a clearer light, and you should be able to see how your position has altered.

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Good job this isnt court. However you are clearly now making an intent argument, when initially you claimed a RAW argument. Given your own statements are themselves contradictory, figruing out what youre claiming is getting difficult.

Reread Rigelds quotes from you, in hopefully a clearer light, and you should be able to see how your position has altered.

Yes, it altered between the third and fourth quotes, as I said. Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, not sure why you thought differently - it was fearless in the 4th eddition book as well.

Mostly because in my game against CSM the other night, the guy I was playing said it was not Fearless.

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

No I am not arguing intent. I have stated my belief on the intent, but I am not going to be arguing it until the how words can be used argument is finished. If you can admit that it can be read as either way, I would be satisfied with the result of that discussion and then I would go argue with someone else about intent (I say this as you have made it clear that you are uninterested in that argument)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

I steered it that way? Who was it that kept saying

"Includes this.." cannot mean...

This assertion made it about how words can be used.

Cryhavok - as written that list cannot be read as exhaustive

Once you admit that is the case, you can move on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - as written that list cannot be read as exhaustive

Once you admit that is the case, you can move on.

It can be. Is what you mean to say that it should not be?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

No I am not arguing intent. I have stated my belief on the intent, but I am not going to be arguing it until the how words can be used argument is finished. If you can admit that it can be read as either way, I would be satisfied with the result of that discussion and then I would go argue with someone else about intent (I say this as you have made it clear that you are uninterested in that argument)

So you're not arguing intent, but you believe it was intended to be exhaustive.
Again, not putting words in your mouth.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

I steered it that way? Who was it that kept saying

"Includes this.." cannot mean...

This assertion made it about how words can be used.

And then you, again, brought in intent saying that they "intended" only to be used. In your emergency door example the intent was obvious. You attempted to use that to say that all examples must be that way - which is false.

"This includes" is by definition non-exhaustive. If you add additional words like "only" in there, then it's an exhaustive list. Your assumption adds words. Mine does not. Therefore mine is the way it's written.

No, not at all.

As written that list is not an exhaustive list. It just isnt.

No matter your opinion otherwise, the actual language used to write the sentence states otherwise.

Arguing is a verb, an action. I am not actively arguing about intent. Stating what I believe an intent was, is not arguing. So no I am not arguing intent, yet.

You are correct when you say, "this includes..." Does not make the list exclusive. You are incorrect when you say it can not be read to be exhaustive. Saying that is claiming that context can not make it. Context can make lots of things happen. For example if you read that list to be defining what an attack is in that FAQ (something that context does allow), then that list would be just as exhaustive as the dictionary entry for a word (an exhaustive list of meanings that does not conform to the belief that it must be specified as "only" in order to be so).

cryhavok wrote:
Arguing is a verb, an action. I am not actively arguing about intent. Stating what I believe an intent was, is not arguing. So no I am not arguing intent, yet.

You are correct when you say, "this includes..." Does not make the list exclusive. You are incorrect when you say it can not be read to be exhaustive. Saying that is claiming that context can not make it. Context can make lots of things happen. For example if you read that list to be defining what an attack is in that FAQ (something that context does allow), then that list would be just as exhaustive as the dictionary entry for a word (an exhaustive list of meanings that does not conform to the belief that it must be specified as "only" in order to be so).

Does a dictionary definition "include" the list? Or does it simply state a list?

Context can change the meaning of a sentence, but it does not seem to in this case.
Reading "This includes..." as exhaustive is simply misunderstanding the language, or making assumptions about words that simply aren't there. Your emergency door example earlier was a good example of the latter.

rigeld2 wrote:

Context can change the meaning of a sentence, but it does not seem to in this case.

I am glad we agree that context can change the meaning of a sentence. When you state, "it does not seem to" we arrive at our separate interpretations. As I seriously doubt either of us will sway the other on interpretations, and mine has already been stated, I think this has reach a finish, and I am going to step out of this thread. I enjoyed the debate.

Please, cite the context that would add the word "only" to that sentence. Or something to support your viewpoint. Otherwise you're literally adding words with no support and trolling me by saying you're arguing one thing, then arguing another, then changing your stance, and now I have no idea what you're trying to say.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite the context that would add the word "only" to that sentence. Or something to support your viewpoint. Otherwise you're literally adding words with no support and trolling me by saying you're arguing one thing, then arguing another, then changing your stance, and now I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Context does not add words. I am not going to explain to you how context works. You are, yet again, trying to change what I have said by restating it in a different way. You say you have no idea what Im trying to say, maybe that is because you are soo busy trying to make me say what you want me to be saying, that you don't actually get what I'm saying. So let me be clear, I am saying two things:

1: Your interpretation of that answer is not the only one possible, and not the one I agree with. I have already shown how and why. Your disagreement with my interpretation does not make it wrong, nor you right.
2: I am finished with this argument and will not post again here.

I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that point in particular. I'm just offering my opinion on whether maledictions should be included.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.

Since there's no rulebook definition of an attack (note the difference between that and Attacks the stat) you have to fall back on the dictionary definition.
Unless you can find a rules definition of an attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.

Since there's no rulebook definition of an attack (note the difference between that and Attacks the stat) you have to fall back on the dictionary definition.
Unless you can find a rules definition of an attack.

No, you don't automatically fall back on the dictionary, otherwise things like deployment could be considered an "attack". What I am saying is the following:
Is something bound by this restriction?:
Is it on the list?
Do its rules define it as an "attack"?
If yes to either of those, restriction applies.

But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

But the rules also do not say that is an exhaustive list of everything that is an attack.

You're using circular reasoning...

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

But the rules also do not say that is an exhaustive list of everything that is an attack.

You're using circular reasoning...

No I'm not. You cannot cite a rule saying anything else is a part of that list. Maybe in the next codex release, there will be something defined as an "attack", who knows? But as for now, that list IS exhaustive, although it wouldn't be if anything else fit the category of "attack".

And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

Which means the list isnt exhaustive....

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

So what does define the category of attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

So what does define the category of attack?

If something were to have it, it would say something in its rules like "this is an attack..."
If you suggest anything else is an attack, then you are getting at intent or HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which means the list isnt exhaustive....

If you had read my post, you would know that I am not saying that it is exhaustive per se.

Exhaustive is a binary state when it comes to lists. It is exhaustive or it isnt.

So, is it exhaustive or not? One word answer is all thats needed.

Yes.
But that could change if something else qualified.
Asking for a one word answer to get the results you want by removing your opponent's context is not cool.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

You are correct. 'Is a malediction an attack?' is the only real question.

Tactical_Genius wrote:And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that point in particular. I'm just offering my opinion on whether maledictions should be included.

Though I tend towards the 'this not an attack because the BRB does not define it as an attack' side here it cannot be proven and is therefore only speculation. IMO there is no RAW answer to the question. There is not even a solid RAI due to poor wording and lack of defined parameters. The dictionary definition is to broad to say either so IMO it's impossible to decipher what they meant here... though I may try divining the answer but that may require a cat... and the cat is locked in Schrodinger's box.... along with the answer...

There are a lot of things the BRB does not define. Such as More, Same, and include.

There are some things in the BRB that we need to use the standard English definition of to make the game playable as the BRB does not define every word.

They define Attack, but not attack, so we have to fall back on the standard English definition of attack.

a Malediction most definitely fits the definition of attack...

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are a lot of things the BRB does not define. Such as More, Same, and include.

There are some things in the BRB that we need to use the standard English definition of to make the game playable as the BRB does not define every word.

They define Attack, but not attack, so we have to fall back on the standard English definition of attack.

a Malediction most definitely fits the definition of attack...

Permissive ruleset.
You cannot cite a rule saying a malediction is an attack.
RAW a malediction is not an attack.
And the dictionary definition isn't a good argument. Deployment fits the definition of an "attack", does that mean if I deploy against an army that contains FMC I am bound by that restriction?
My point is, as per the tenets, dictionary definitions are not enough proof of RAW unless it is abundantly clear what is meant. This is not abundantly clear, so, as per the tenets, please cite a rule that identifies a malediction as an attack, or concede.

Tactical_Genius, define More, Same, and include in the BRB.

If you can do that you have a point, but if you can not you have to realize that the BRB does not define every word contained therein.

Also "Deployment" most certainly does not fit the definition of "attack"

"Take aggressive action against a foe"

Wow, Tactical_Genius is right, technically deploying an army against your opponent is an aggressive action.

No, it isnt, as you have yet to take any action AGAINST the foe - all you have done is placed models on the board. "Action" is active, deployment is passive

Tactical - yet the list isnt exhaustive, because the list isnt written as exhaustive.

Define "The", using just 40k rules. If you cannot cite a rule showing what "the" means, you must concede.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt, as you have yet to take any action AGAINST the foe - all you have done is placed models on the board. "Action" is active, deployment is passive

Tactical - yet the list isnt exhaustive, because the list isnt written as exhaustive.

Define "The", using just 40k rules. If you cannot cite a rule showing what "the" means, you must concede.

Demonstrate categorically that deployment is passive, if you can't you must concede.

Wrong way round, actually

You have to prove it is an attack, by proving you are taking aggressive ACTION against a foe.

Do so or concede it is not an attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong way round, actually

You have to prove it is an attack, by proving you are taking aggressive ACTION against a foe.

Do so or concede it is not an attack.

No I don't, you are making the assertion of passivity I am making no assertion, ergo the burden of poof is on you.

I never asserted it was an attack, I have not made my position on whether or not it is an attack clear, thus have no point to concede, not having made one. Don't assume my stance.

No it isnt. I was responding to those claiming it is an attack, while offering no proof of such. I proved the opposite, using the language the game is written in.

I am stating it is not an attack, as there is no action performed against the enemy. There are actions performed, but they are not against an enemy. English tells us this, as there is no 40k definition for "action"

Thus demonstrated.

Do you not by the common English definition of deploy in context of a battle, deploy against a foe.

"And there, arrayed against us, stood a mighty host."

To quote, er, someone.

Again, show the action taken against them - at the moment of deployment neither side has taken an action against the enemy, just taken an action of their own army.
That quote also uses "against" to mean "opposite", I would posit.

What definition of against are you using? I was assuming "in opposition to", is that the same one?

Opposite vs Oppose

One is passive, the other active

Opposition relates to oppose not opposite according to the OED, except in relation to celestial objects. They have a related etymology obvs.

So for those who still think we should use the dictionary definition of "attack".
If you are not deploying "against" the foe, then you are just randomly putting units on the table.
Deployment should be and IS considered an "attack" by definition of the English word. Henceforth, using the English meaning is not an appropriate reasoning.
You have no RAW to support your claim. Please prove me wrong or concede.
(just as an aside, HIYPI is that maledictions are bound by it, I'm only arguing RAW here.)

There are several recent political situations where the simple lining up of troops on a border (ie. deploying forces) is considered an act of aggression. The definition Prince Raven gave us earlier for attack, "Take aggressive action against a foe," seems to describe exactly this deployment of troops. Deploying things is certainly active, and not passive. If it were passive, your hands would not be moving, your brain would not be working. In the context of deployment, you are actively planning the downfall of your opponent. I'd call that an "attack" if we're insisting on calling maledictions "attacks."

Going back to what Drunkenspleen said on page 1, the rules for Swooping on page 49 are pretty clear: If a Flying Monstrous Creature is Swooping, it moves exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature, with the following exceptions and clarifications: ...

So if a FMC is forced to Fall Back, it would Fall Back 3D6" as per the rules for Jump Monstrous Creatures.

Can a Malediction "hit" a Swooping FMC? RAW, yes, it can. It is not a shooting attack or shooting psychic attack. You simply need to be in range of the intended target. If you pass your psychic test, you can use your Malediction against any enemy unit in range. Your Malediction doesn't even need to be able to hurt it (FAQ example is Hallucination can target a Vehicle but won't actually have any effect).

So you could use a Malediction against a Zooming Vendetta if you really wanted to. Other than Misfortune and Objuration Mechanicum I don't think there's any BRB powers that would work. Maybe Dominate, but I'm pretty sure you can't force vehicles to take a Leadership test. I think they count as Ld 10 for Psychic Powers if they have the Psychic Pilot rule but that was it.