Unless otherwise stated, when
setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up
within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own
datasheet (excluding hills, page 260)
Miasmic Malignifier states it can be set up ANYWHERE more than 12" away from enemy deployment zone and enemy models.
My question is, does that statement qualify as 'Unless otherwise stated' and thus make it actually able to be deployed within 3" of other terrain (And therefore maybe useable)
Or would it have to directly mention being allowed within 3" of terrain?
I would personally say no, as while you're given conditions on where to set up this new thing, nothing states that it specifically overrides the 3" restriction.
Valkyrie wrote: I would personally say no, as while you're given conditions on where to set up this new thing, nothing states that it specifically overrides the 3" restriction.
"Anywhere" would override the 3" restriction. Within 1" of another terrain feature is part of "anywhere". The only restrictions are where to place it relative to the enemy deployment zone and enemy models.
The anywhere does not overule it would need to specifically state that it does (i have seen this in tourney packs)
Its a bad rule but it is what it is
You cannot set it up within 3"of another terrain feature but you can set it up anywhere on the board that is more than 12" from the enemy so their is a greater likelihood there will be such a gap
The only grey area due to bad rules writing is the pox furnace which while spawned by the same datasheet is a separate terrain feature and so arguably has a separate datasheet in which case has to be set up more than 3" away while being wholey within 6" essentially do 2 seperate terrain features with different rules spawned by the same datasheet count as one datasheet or 2 seperate sub datasheets
Again the core rule is stupid and makes most fortifications unplayable as in lots of bords you can't place them
The key thing is that it says "Unless otherwise stated"
"ANYWHERE more than 12" away from enemy deployment zone and enemy models." Does not state otherwise as it does not make reference to it. Sure it's permissive but saying you can do does not negate a can't
In addition if that were true the way round GW Fortification limitation would be to place it in reserves and have sneaky buildings which at the very least won't be there intention
U02dah4 wrote: The key thing is that it says "Unless otherwise stated"
"ANYWHERE more than 12" away from enemy deployment zone and enemy models." Does not state otherwise as it does not make reference to it. Sure it's permissive but saying you can do does not negate a can't
That is not always true. Saying can sometimes does negate a can't.
Take advancing and charging for example.
40k PDF rules Page 19 wrote:Start your Charge phase by selecting one eligible unit from your army that you want to charge, and declare a charge with it. An eligible unit is one that is within 12" of any enemy units at the start of the Charge phase. Units that have Advanced or Fallen Back this battle round, and units that start the Charge phase within Engagement Range of any enemy units, are not eligible units.
This tells us that Units that have Advanced can't charge.
However with the Tyranids:
Tyranid rulebook, Genestealers Dataslate wrote:Swift and Deadly: Genestealers can charge even if they Advanced during their turn.
So clearly we have a can that definitely negates a can't.
U02dah4 wrote: Thats a completely different situation and supports my point
The swift and deadly rule specifically stated that it overrules the the can't and so it does
If it just said genestealers can charge units within 12" it wouldn't
The first clause is permissive the second provides an exemption to the can't rule. And you need the specific statement for it to do so.
The anywhere in the rule seems pretty specific that it can be, well, anywhere more than 12" away from enemy deployment zone and enemy models regardless of anything else.
Being specific about 12" doesn't matter. Its needs to mention the 3" and in that respect it's not specific it doesnt mention the 3" rule at all so doesn't overrule it.
U02dah4 wrote: Being specific about 12" doesn't matter. Its needs to mention the 3" and in that respect it's not specific it doesnt mention the 3" rule at all so doesn't overrule it.
Does it say "anywhere" or "anywhere not currently restricted"? You are treating it as the latter.
Because that how restrictions work the cant overules the can
If it were the way round your proposing the restrictions rule wouldn't work on any fortification because you have permission to place them anywhere in your deployment zone
Advanceing would never stop a gun firing because the shooting phase gives you permission to fire
While you could cast the same psychic powers as many times as you like because the rules allow you to select it as long you ignore that pesky restriction on not being able to select the same power twice (except smite - note smite is another example of a clearly worded exemption to a restriction).
Plus a dozen more examples -
Your rule gives you permission to do something
It does not explicitly give you permission to ignore restrictions
Deathbringers quote showed a nice example of a permissive rule worded to ignore restrictions it directly references the restriction.
"Once the battlefield has been created, the players must roll off again.
The winner chooses one of the two deployment zones to be theirs.
The players then alternate deploying their units, one at a time,
starting with the player who did not pick their deployment zone.
Models must be set up wholly within their own deployment zone."
Its just as specific wholley within the deployment zone is no more specific than anywhere12" from the enemy it equally doesn't mention an exemption from the 3" rule. The only difference is one gives you permission to be outside the deployment zone.
As a rule, you must abide by all rules unless you have an exception. Normally, a fortification must be deployed:
A: within your deployment zone (Scenario rules)
B: not within 3" of any terrain feature (fortification rules)
C: not on top of another model (basic rules)
Miasmic Malignifier is allowed to deploy anywhere not within 12" of the opponent's deployment zone and enemy models.
This definitely overrides A as it explicitly changes that.
It could override B, but that is putting a lot of weight on "anywhere".
I cannot imagine it overrides C.
Therefore the conservative interpretation is it only overrides A.
I showed you need a specific exemption because can't overules can and if you don't have that none of the can't rules function at all such as the 3" rule in the first place as all fortifications could be placed , advancing wouldn't prevent shooting repeated manifesting of psychic powers would work, as would attacking targets that weren't charged when you charged.
Your interpretation that general permission overrides specific exemptions causes all rules to break down
So unless you can prove you have a specific named exemption to the 3" rule. And "anywhere" as a word does not mention the 3" rule so the onus is on you to prove it does then you have no case to a specific exemption.
or you have to prove why all the other permissive rules are treated differently despite just as specific wording while explaining why they bother to put specific exemptions on some as your arguing they don't need them
"Prove it" is not an argument so either you can show a specific exemption mentioning the 3" rule or explain why this permissive case is different to all other permissive cases
Or its pretty obvious we take the interpretation that doesn't involve breaking the game or creating a special snowflake for no reason.
Yes it makes it largely unplayable but the rule makes almost all fortifications unplayable it is a terrible rule but that doesn't mean you can pick and choose when to apply it
I showed you need a specific exemption because can't overules can
I have shown you that can't does not always overrule can.
Anywhere is more specific than the basic rules about terrain in this instance.
P.S. while "Prove it" is not an argument, it is asking you to provide rules that back up your statement.
You only showed that in an example with a "specific exemption" in which it called out the rule it was exempting. So you only proved you needed what I have said you needed which is a specific exemption. You have not provided onem
No their is no distinction in specificity between core rules and codex since 7th edition. Both core and codex/datasheets are equally valid. Specific in this context is directly nameing or referencing of the rule being exempted where that exemption is located is not relevant I will accept one you can produce from any valid source but it must directly reference the 3" rule.
I provided a clear description of the support for my argument the strongest being that yours breaks the game if applied to other contexts and clearly provides undesirable results which you have no counter for.
You have provided no support for yours just an assertment that you are correct and a quote which you use to show permissive rules can be overridden but ignore that the quote you picked shows a specific exemption, which goes against your argument that you don't need one.
I don't need to disprove something that has no evidence, your assertion is wrong. it is wrong because you can't support your argument with evidence, you can only assert it as fact and you can't address why it should be treated differently to other identically permissive rules. Instead you clutch at straws with a 6th/7th edition rule because... you have no case.
Ou of curiosety does the tyranid Sporocyst also get to deploy where it wants?
"Bombardment Organism: When you set up this unit during deployment, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."
The GSC cult drill (and many of the imperial default once) do not come with these rules.
Rules of drill:
Spoiler:
Sector Mechanicus Structure: After it is set up, a Tectonic Fragdrill is treated as a Sector Mechanicus terrain feature. It cannot move for any reason, is not treated as a friendly or enemy model, and cannot be targeted or affected by any attacks or abilities.
Only INFANTRY, BEASTS, SWARMS and units that can FLY can be set up or end their move on the upper floors of a Sector Mechanicus Structure (any unit can do so on the ground floor). Unless they can FLY, INFANTRY, BEASTS and SWARMS must scale ladders, girders or walls to ascend or descend between the different levels of a Sector Mechanicus structure. INFANTRY are also assumed to be able to traverse around girders, buttresses and hanging chains, and so move through them without impediment. INFANTRY units that are entirely on a Sector Mechanicus Structure receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely on or within a Sector Mechanicus Structure only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.
Underground Ingress: Once per turn, in their Movement phase, one INFANTRY or BIKER unit with the Cult Ambush ability can move off the battlefield if all of its models are on ground level and can move within 1" of this model (a unit cannot do so in the same phase it arrived as reinforcements). If a unit does this, remove the selected unit from the battlefield. At the end of your next Movement phase, set up that unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models. If the battle ends before this unit is set back up, it is destroyed.
Activate the Drill: If a model from your army is on a Tectonic Fragdrill at the end of your Movement phase, and there are no enemy models on it, you can activate the drill. If you do, first roll a D6 for every unit on ground level that is within 3" of the tip of this model’s large drill; on a 6 that unit immediately suffers D6 mortal wounds. Then roll a D6, adding 1 to the result for each other time the drill on this model has been activated during the battle. If the total is less than 6, the Seismic Tremors result below takes effect. On a 6+ the Seismic Tremors and Seismic Quake results below take effect. The Seismic Quake result can only take effect once per battle, regardless of how many Tectonic Fragdrills are on the battlefield.
Seismic Tremors: Until the start of your next Movement phase, subtract 2 from charge rolls made for units whilst they are within 12" of this model. This does not apply to units that can FLY, and the effects of multiple Seismic Tremors are not cumulative.
Seismic Quake: Draw a straight imaginary line, 1mm in thickness, from any point of one battlefield edge to any point of another battlefield edge in such a way that it crosses this model. Roll a D6 for every unit this line crosses that is on ground level (do not roll for units that can FLY): on a 4+ that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds and its Move characteristic is halved until the end of its next Movement phase.
p5freak wrote: The sporocyst isnt a fortification. The more than 3" away from terrain only affects fortifications.
I think you might confuse it with the flying transport you build from the same model kit. (I say transport, but it plays more like a drop pod.) The sporocyst is bought in the fortification slot though.
Having just looked up the datasheet as I've not seen a sporocyst fielded
It is subject to the 3" restriction as it has the fortification role and does not have a specific exemption
The arguments identical to the miasmic magnifier as it would be to a bastion deployed normally.
Q1 do you have the fortification battlefield role
Q2 do you have an exemption that specifically says to ignore the 3" rule.
If you answer yes to the first and no to the second it applies
The only grey area in fortifications I am aware of is the pox furnace that may have been intended to have a partial exemption but by strict RAW probably doesn't. However the RAW is unclear. Entertainingly even were the anywhere interpretation correct (which it isnt) the pox furnace is not subject to that word so would still need to be more than 3" from terrain.
Its a terrible rule and makes all three almost unplayable and thats why so many dislike it and I've seen tournaments house rule it away. However the rule is clear
I don't need to disprove something that has no evidence, your assertion is wrong. it is wrong because you can't support your argument with evidence, you can only assert it as fact and you can't address why it should be treated differently to other identically permissive rules. Instead you clutch at straws with a 6th/7th edition rule because... you have no case.
Well your statement is 100% wrong.
I have evidence, my assertion is that "anywhere" means anywhere.
Your statements make it seem like "anywhere" does not mean anywhere.
U02dah4 wrote: 1 saying something is wrong without evidence to support that is not an argument
2 if you have evidence as you claim present it, if not all you have is an assertion not an argument
3 Well done your getting it - anywhere means anywhere .... unless another rule specifically restricts this, which in the context their is
I gave you evidence... The rule says "anywhere" You need something to counter that, which you can't because "anywhere" means anywhere, and not anywhere except within 3 inches of this other thing.
"anywhere" over-rides the restriction because it says "anywhere".
"anywhere" is pretty specific on where it can deploy, and over rides restrictions of can't.
So in otherwords you don't have any evidence just the assertion and the circular argument that your right because your right and since your right the other argument must be wrong.
You also have no answer to why that assertion should be treatedly differently to all the other permissive rules that don't overrule their restrictions.
If can overrules can't without a specific exemption why are any fortifications effected by the restriction as they all have some rule telling them where they can deploy wholey within is just as specific as anywhere
Why can guns not fire when they advance they all have a rule that says you can fire guns
Why can you not manifest all psychic powers multiple times there's a rule that gives you permission to manifest psychic powers.
I'll just follow the rule saying "anywhere" ,, which is more specific (as it applies to this model alone) than the rule for deploying fortifications in general.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I'll just follow the rule saying "anywhere" ,, which is more specific (as it applies to this model alone) than the rule for deploying fortifications in general.
So can you place it on top of other models?
Can you place it overhanging the table?
The fortification restriction is “when setting up” unless “otherwise stated”. The malignifier then says “when you set up this model”.
Contrast this with the webway gate that also states “anywhere” but then goes on to further restrict placement to more than 3” from other terrain features.
Garlmaws are a great example of without any restrictions, with some but different, and with the normal restrictionsl:
They can similarly be placed anywhere BUT ONLY WHEN SUMMONED because that’s what the summon rule tells you to do. You aren’t following the fortification placement rules, you’re following the otherwise stated rules in the Daemonic Ritual rule.
Gnarlmaws placed with Slimux cannot be placed within 1” of other terrain features, as that’s what is otherwise stated for the setup of that fortification under the Slimux rules.
Gnarlmaws placed regularly during deployment have no otherwise stated rules and have to be outside of 3”.
It can be placed anywhere by RAW and in comparing the rules to other forward-deployable fortifications it also comports with RAI.
The faq restriction is not part of the standard fortification deployment rules (because they don't exist you just deploy as any model) it is explicit that it applies whenever a fortification is set up not if it is set up during deployment its clear that it applies to reserves summons etc
No gnarlmores can't be placed anywhere they can be summoned but are still subject to the 3" from terrain restriction as they also have no exemption
As to the webway that datasheet was written before the faq and has the same restriction twice no other datasheet to my knowledge has it and it has no bearing on the faq restriction that it would be restricted if the faq didn't apply
In what whey does that interpretation comport to RAW your ignoring the RAW to do so because your ignore restrictions without explicit permission.
You want to tell a TO that “anywhere” doesn’t actually mean that then have fun.
There are many ways that GW has laid out forward deployment of terrain and one restriction. The restriction is modified by the fortifications deployment rules. This is not evenly applied across all factions but it is also RAW.
@deathreaper I thought by your definition the context didn't matter
So you can pick and choose which restrictions you feel are appropriate and ignore those you don't like with no explanation as to why those are valid and those are not
Sure some restrictions break the game if ignored but plenty don't.
Ignoreing the 3"restriction doesn't break the game it just gives you an unfair advantage.
Still noone has been able to say why anywhere allows you to ignore 3"but wholey within the deployment zone doesnt or why following the same logic on restrictions means advanceing doesnt prevents you firing weapons and you can cast unlimited psychic powers and about 20 other problems
@ nosferatu1001
I'm not sure you understand what proof is - You haven't engaged with the counter arguments and so far you haven't made a full argument let alone a proof
What is proven is their is a rule that prevents models being placed 3" from terrain
That rule is proven to apply to all models with the fortification battlefield role which the miasmic magnifier has and is therefore subject to
Their is no specific exemption referencing that 3" rule in the case of the miasmic magnifier
Thats all that has been proven those three things
We then have the two interpretations the first an assertion that you should follow the above rules because their the rules as written (game functions)
We have the counter assertion the word anywhere gives you permission to ignore 3"rule because anywhere means anywhere so ignores all restrictions and that even though it doesnt reference or mention the 3" rule it ignores it. However...
unless you have a reason why anywhere is different from all the other permissive words/clauses we have situation where for that to be true all restrictions are null/void so as others say nothing stops you putting your terrain on other terrain or on other models or on another board entirely because the definition of a battlefield is a restriction. (If they are the same 3"rule never applies to any model)
The only alternative is your picking and choosing which rules to apply to gain a competative advantage
So if you want to prove you need to explain why anywhere is different to another permissive sentence such as wholey within in a way that can be clearly applied under raw to all restrictions so they stay in place because if you can't my -1D dreadnought will under the same rule ignore its minimum restriction and refuse take any damage from 1D weapons
If you cannot we have two assertion one that functions that you don't like and one that either breaks the game/or is openly cheating (picking which rules to apply to gain a competative advantage advantage) That seems about as far from a proof as you can get
Because if your choice is a functioning game, a broken game or a cheat im going with the functioning game
The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.
You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.
They did not.
It is your interpretation of RAI to add the restriction that isn't there but that isn't RAW.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.
You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.
GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
Raw it states anywhere RAW that doesn't reference the 3" rule so doesnt over rule it. In order to otherwise state you need to reference the thing your counter-stateing otherwise you only have permission not a counter of the restriction.
The thing your calling a strawman is not a strawman its the central point wrong with your argument. You recognise it as ridiculous straight away - which it is its ' reductio ad absurdem ' but you have been unable to specify why a rule like anywhere ignores that restriction and not others and why other rules such as wholey within are not equally exempted. Since you can't differentiate from the clearly absurd consequences your answer is wrong or atleast breaks the game.
As to the gate the datasheet predated the faq it has no bearing
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.
You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.
GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.
Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.
But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.
You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.
GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.
Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.
But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?
Where does it state that you can ignore other rules?
Not "where does it maybe kinda imply you can ignore other rules," but where does it STATE that you can ignore other rules?
Notably, the Webway Gate predates 9th edition. There wasn't a universal rule stating that terrain and fortifications had to be 3" apart back then.
Edit: Also, does every rule apply unless it states it has exceptions?
Do the core shooting rules give an exception for Engaged models, or models that Advanced? Because if they don't, by your logic, you cannot shoot after advancing with Assault weapons, or in close combat with Pistols.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.
You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.
GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.
Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.
But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?
Where does it state that you can ignore other rules?
Not "where does it maybe kinda imply you can ignore other rules," but where does it STATE that you can ignore other rules?
Notably, the Webway Gate predates 9th edition. There wasn't a universal rule stating that terrain and fortifications had to be 3" apart back then.
Edit: Also, does every rule apply unless it states it has exceptions?
Do the core shooting rules give an exception for Engaged models, or models that Advanced? Because if they don't, by your logic, you cannot shoot after advancing with Assault weapons, or in close combat with Pistols.
Jesus Christ, the fortification rules literally include the words “unless otherwise stated”.
None of these other strawmen arguments have a similar clause.
I get that a lot of people in this thread don’t think that “anywhere” is explicit enough. It is still the rule as written. Gnarlmaw’s were FAQd to have to be 1” from other terrain pieces. That FAQ does literally nothing under the belief that a rule must specifically state “this rule is operating under the clause of “otherwise states” in the fortification rules blurb”.
The rules as written don’t care that you believe that there must be a specific call out. The rules as written are already “otherwise stated”.
No one is arguing that that the words unless otherwise stated exist
The argument is that anywhere is not sufficient to meet the requirements for otherwise stated
You need to explicitly state
As on it would need to say in you can deploy anywhere 12" from the enemy ignoreing the limitation on being 3" from the enemy or words to that effect
No its RAI not RAW you can tell its an interpretation because of half the posters are disagreeing with you. If it was RAW we would all be in agreement.
So the feculant gnarlmore faq was written before the 3" faq limitation and they never changed it. So currently the feculant gnarlmore must be both 1" away and 3" away in practice this makes half the line redundant however the gnarlmore specific faq adds an additional limitation that each gnarlmore must be within 6" Could it do with being tidied up absolutely but both rules add a restriction and completely removing either changes things neither has any relevance on whether or not anyways is sufficient
If everyone can agree what the wording means its a RAW argument
Its a RAW argument that their needs to be a stated exemption
If the wording is unclear then you are not dealing with RAW you are dealing with interpretation. So your argument is RAI as in it was intended that anywhere is an exemption
The problem is when that intention is examined you can't answer the basic of why anywhere is but wholey within isn't or why that restriction is ignored and others arn't. Or why in other circumstances rules that overrule restrictions directly reference the rule they are overruleing eg assault weapons directly reference advancing smite exemption directly references the restriction on manifesting the same psychic power however this rule doesn't directly refer to or reference that rule at all it just has the word anywhere
Therefore anyone coming from a standpoint you require a stated exemption referencing that rule is going to look at that rule and say its not written in the rule because it doesn't mention the rule. Your saying it doesnt need that but it does unless you can answer the questions in the previous paragraph and you have been unable to do so just dismissing them. Because the other RAI argument that you need a specifically stated exemption referencing the rule doesn't throw up these problems
You also don't know what a strawman is - a strawman is when you build up a seperate easier to defeat argument then defeat it instead of addressing the actual argument. Since these arguments are central to the discussion of why one RAI works and one doesn't, if your saying our straws were successfully defeated by our argument your effectively saying yours is wrong.
Your argument is that they """only""" said "anywhere" and not "anywhere but also anywhere within this range limitation that is also covered by us saying anywhere".
That's it. That's your whole argument. That the words they have used haven't actually been used.
I don't know how to argue against a position that is literally not using the rules as they are written in plain english.
If they FAQ in the 3" range limitation, I guess we'll know what they intended. But that isn't the case right now.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: Your argument is that they """only""" said "anywhere" and not "anywhere but also anywhere within this range limitation that is also covered by us saying anywhere".
That's it. That's your whole argument. That the words they have used haven't actually been used.
I don't know how to argue against a position that is literally not using the rules as they are written in plain english.
If they FAQ in the 3" range limitation, I guess we'll know what they intended. But that isn't the case right now.
No the arguments is that it says anywhere - it does not say anywhere, ignoring the restriction (any specific reference to the restriction would do - the point your misrepresenting was just how I would word it) um that is using the rules as written in plain. Does it directly state it ignores the restriction Answer=No
Its easy you just have to answer the points we have asked you to explain or we accept you are wrong ignoring them just proves our point because it shows us you have no answer
The intention we can never be sure on unless they clarify, we can be clear one rule works and one doesn't because you have not been able to answer our point
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Does "place anywhere" necessarily include "within 3" "? Yes. Of course it dues.
If you exclude 3" then you are changing the rule
Proven.
That's not how restrictions work
RULE A - Place anywhere within 12" This is permissive it tells you what you can do
RULE B - when deploying do not place within 3" of terrain This is restrictive it modifies rule A
All you have proven is that Rule A includes 3" if you ignore Rule B
To date there has been no proof that you should ignore rule A as rule A does not reference rule B
While the assertion that rule A ignores Rule B doesn't work because when you copy that same logic and apply to other situations you should be able to deploy on other models or it causes assault weapons not to function. Essentially your left with the Question why does Rule A ignore B and not those other obviously absurd things. Which noone arguing that case has been able to answer.
No, you have ignored every instance of plain english that has the fort rule allowing exemptions and the malignifier doing so.
There’s no argument from you, you’re just claiming that every (literally every) example and FAQ proving the above point either doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply despite not having been updated to reflect the rules that you want them to say.
They could have updated old FAQ language, they didn’t, those FAQs and examples apply until they are otherwise changed.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: No, you have ignored every instance of plain english that has the fort rule allowing exemptions and the malignifier doing so.
There’s no argument from you, you’re just claiming that every (literally every) example and FAQ proving the above point either doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply despite not having been updated to reflect the rules that you want them to say.
They could have updated old FAQ language, they didn’t, those FAQs and examples apply until they are otherwise changed.
I accept your acknowledgement that you are unable to address our questions and therefore admit you are wrong.
I don't want them to say anything - I have no desire on what the wording is. However if it says it ignores the restriction then it does - if it doesn't mention the restriction it doesn't.
Indeed they could update wording, however the current wording is clear you can't deploy a fortification within 3" of a terrain unless it directly states you can - Not implies or could be read as - directly states and it doesn't
Anywhere includes the set of all measurements
This set includes the measurement of within 3"
So it has been stated. By using an even more inclusive term.
Done.
I accept your acknowledgement that you are unable to answer the questions and therefore admit you are wrong
Again you have successfully proved A exists if you ignore B well done....
You have again proved that ignoring B is not stated - why because you had to come out with a list of reasoning as to why B was included within the A rule despite it not referencing the B rule. If it was stated you would just provide the quote with the statement directly naming/referencing B but you could not do so.
Secondly by that same logic wholly within the deployment zone includes all-terrain features within the deployment zone so B never applies to any fortification.
I am likely wrong about this but, wasn't there a codicil in the BRB that said all BRB rules supersede non BRB book rules? For instance DS on turn 1? Or was that just 8th? Also, everyone points to "Specific trumps general" where was that written?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I am likely wrong about this but, wasn't there a codicil in the BRB that said all BRB rules supersede non BRB book rules? For instance DS on turn 1? Or was that just 8th? Also, everyone points to "Specific trumps general" where was that written?
Specific trumps general was a 7th edition rule when codex overuled BRB
Now it refers to a general rule as in standard shooting rules that apply unless another rule (a specific one modifies it) (not a brb/codex thing) however this is colloquial for how things work rather than written in the rule book its just accepted that was otherwise specific rules don't do anything
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, you're ignoring that anywhere includes the measurement restriction you're so hell bent on keeping
You can place it anywhere, including within 3", because it has been otherwise STATED
Anywhere states 3". It also states 4" and 6". That's how the word anywhere works
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's RAW for you.
I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent
it doesn't state it doesnt so the 3" rule applies and modifies that rule
by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated or the rule applies to nothing
I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent
it doesn't state it so the 3" rule applies
False, it says "Anywhere" which would overide not within 3"...
by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated
Sure, but if you don't deploy "wholey within the deployment zone" the game breaks.
The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.
It doesn't override it - anywhere does not name the restriction - which is a requirement of stating at best you have an implication from which you've derived an interpretation which is not enough
but as stated below it doesn't work because of the argument below meaning the restriction never does anything under your interpretation
And wholey within the deployment zone doesnt refer to a section of the battlefield?
I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent
it doesn't state it so the 3" rule applies
False, it says "Anywhere" which would overide not within 3"...
by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated
Sure, but if you don't deploy "wholey within the deployment zone" the game breaks.
The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.
It doesn't override it
You keep saying that without any proof. I have shown that "anywhere" means anywhere, and not anywhere except within 3" etc...
anywhere does not name the restriction - which is a requirement of stating at best you have an implication from you've derived an interpretation which is not enough
Except by virtue of saying anywhere it includes the 3" and does not need to mention the restriction specifically.
but as stated below it doesn't work because of the argument below meaning the restriction never does anything under your interpretation
False, there are restrictions that do things.
And wholey within the deployment zone doesnt refer to a section of the battlefield?
1) your saying it overides it, you need to provide proof, you have provided none ergo my case that the proof does not excist is proven by its absence from your argument + i can read and their is no statement in that sentence. The only acceptable proof is a statement directly referring to the restriction being overuled - the word anywhere in response is proof you don't have proof as its not a statement.
2) it says you need to " state it " RAW - mentioning the restriction specifically is literally what stating means.
Note implying alluding to suggesting or being derived from or any synonym there of are not stateing
3/4) you say anywhere means anywhere on the battlefield - wholey within the deployment zone is the default definition of deployment and is also anywhere within an area of the battlefield
Given they both refer to an area of the battlefield with no restrictions in their own rules you are stating restrictions apply to one and not the other..... and you can't see the flaw in your logic
Either they apply to both and the 3" restriction does nothing ever or it applies to both their is no reason it should effects one and not the other
U02dah4 wrote: 1) your saying it overides it you need to provide proof you have provided none ergo my case is proven.
Except I have given proof. It is in the word "Anywhere" if you kinow what that word means, my case is proven. Your is not.
2) it says you need to " state it " RAW - mentioning the restriction specifically is literally what stating means
Except it is "otherwise stated". Anywhere states 1" 3". It also states 4" and 6". That's how the word anywhere works.
3/4) you say anywhere means anywhere on the battlefield - wholey within the deployment zone is the default definition of deployment and is also anywhere within an area of the battlefield
Given they move refer to an area of the battlefield with no restrictions in their own riles you are stating restrictions apply to one and not the other..... and you can't see the flaw in your logic
Again, because of the usage of the word "Anywhere" you could place it 1/2 off the battlefield, if doing so didn't break the game... But it breaks the game so you can not put it there.
Sorry I modified my answers while you were typing
1) as stated saying anywhere is proof you don't have proof its not a statement
2) anywhere does not state 3" that is an outright lie if it does provide the quote in which "anywhere" and 3" appear in the same rule... it doesnt state any of those things although you might derive them, if you need to derrive that is not stating -if you had proof you wouldnt need lie and pretend the rule uses words it doesn't.
3)So why doesn't that logic apply to wholey within the deployment zone - I notice you dodge the salient point or are you saying that under your interpretation none of those rules work but if you do those things it breaks the game. Thus proving my earlier point that of the two RAI interpretations one breaks the game and one doesn't.
I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.
JohnnyHell wrote: I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.
JohnnyHell wrote: I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.
Except that would over-ride "anywhere" in the rule.
The rules state "Unless otherwise stated". "Anywhere" is otherwise stated, so it over-rides the terrain rule.
So despite having proved it doesn't useing a dictionary and despite using your own argument to prove it breaks the game, which you acknowledged and chose not refute, your still flogging that dead horse.
It doesn't overide anywhere he's described exactly what it means and yes that not what you claim it means but he can read.
And no it doesn't as proved by you - anywhere is not otherwise stated and if it was it breaks the game! so we won't be using that interpretation we will be using the one that isn't game breaking.
U02dah4 wrote: So despite having proved it doesn't useing a dictionary and despite using your own argument to prove it breaks the game, which you acknowledged and chose not refute, your still flogging that dead horse
Except you have not done any of that. It seems that you are the one "still flogging that dead horse"
It doesn't overide anywhere he's described exactly what it means and yes that not what you claim it means but he can read.
And no it doesn't as proved by you - anywhere is not otherwise stated and if it was it breaks the game! so we won't be using that interpretation we will be using the one that isn't game breaking.
again your argument is incorrect, since you clearly do not know what "Anywhere" means.
JohnnyHell wrote: I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.
Except that would over-ride "anywhere" in the rule.
The rules state "Unless otherwise stated". "Anywhere" is otherwise stated, so it over-rides the terrain rule.
I’m not gonna play “argue against DeathReaper til thread lock”, I’ve got a busy day... I’ve told you how I would play the rules. You enjoy doing what you’re doing.
Yeah we are not got gonna change your mind as your not looking to honestly engage with the evidence - both sides of the argument have been throughly examined here - I'm sticking with the interpretation that doesn't break the game but you do you
U02dah4 wrote: Yeah we are not got gonna change your mind as your not looking to honestly engage with the evidence - both sides of the argument have been throughly examined here - I'm sticking with the interpretation that doesn't break the game but you do you
Says the person that is ignoring what "Anywhere" means...
And my way doesn't break the game, yours breaks the "Anywhere" rule by restricting "Anywhere"...
Thats it the whole definition. The definition of anywhere has no bearing on the argument and never did, hence Ignoratio Elenchi
The question was do you have a statement that the 3" restriction does not apply
State - Defined as verb - express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing
Anywhere is not a statement! it is not a written expression referring to a 3" restriction! That would require multiple words - in the context it refers to any place on the battlefield. It doesn't matter how many times you idiotically shout anywhere means anywhere all your doing is missing the point once more.
Anywhere is not and will never be a statement referring to a restriction it is one word.
U02dah4 wrote: The definition of anywhere has no bearing on the argument and never did, hence Ignoratio Elenchi
This of course is 100% false
The question was do you have a statement that the 3" restriction does not apply
Yes, it is in the "Seeded Growths" rule on the Miasmic Malignifier dataslate. "...it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."
So it has to be on the battlefield, but it can be "anywhere" on the battlefield.
The "anywhere" in that rule over-rides the 3" restriction by virtue of the rule saying "anywhere on the battlefield".
Had it said [anywhere on the battlefield except within 3" of terrain] This wouldn't even be a discussion. But it does not say that.
Frankly I can't understand how you are droning on claiming that "anywhere on the battlefield" does not actually mean "anywhere on the battlefield"
And where does the seeded growths rule directly reference the 3" rule. Note you only need provide the quote containing the 3". The rest of your blurb is irrelevant
You can either quote the statement or you can't and at this point we both no you can't.
Because without that quote your arguing the rule does nothing as any permissive rule overrules it so the standard deployment rules specifying wholey within your deployment zone overule it
Not to mention in other context psychic powers assault weapons etc.. and broken game
And the argument has looped
The crux is you need a statement and one word isn't a statement and never will be so provide a statement - if your next post doesn't include a quote of a relevant statement directly referencing ignoring the 3" rule I will take that as an admission that you acknowledge you are wrong.
Doesn't matter what else you write clear quote including " 3" rule does not apply" or words to that effect and I admit your right anything else includeing the word anywhere or what you can derrive from anywhere and you admit your wrong
There is reasonably clear consensus except deathreaper.
Maybe nosferatu and poorgravitas however however both of them disappeared from the argument when the flaws in their argument where shown to them. E.g. nosferatu proved anywhere meant anywhere on the board but also proved he had no statement referencing the 3" restriction. However strictly speaking they didnt acknowledge those arguments they just didn't post so I'll take that as an admission they changed their mind but they could have just not looked at the thread.
Once the actual arguments have started pretty much everyone has agreed with one interpretation. Deathreaper is responsible for 90% of his sides arguments
That doesn't balance out with me, Valerie, aash, alextroy, Jnaproductions, jonny hell
While the yes it does no it does format of deathreapers argument makes it seem that way it doesn't mean both cases have equal evidence even if their are two sides
In summary
* we have provided a dictoral definition of a statement- that is not met provably as no quote has been provided and you need a clear phrase referencing the restriction
* applying deathreapers logic reguarding anywhere, the same logic applies to wholey within the deployment zone, as they are identical except referring to a portion rather than the whole battlefield. This makes the 3"restriction redundant in all circumstances obviously absurd - he hasn't been able to explain a difference between the two meaning we are right or you go to the next bullet point
* applying the permissive overuleing restrictions logic breaks the game entirely as it allows you to do many unintended things like firing weapons after advancing or multicasting psychic powers - he acknowledged this then later denied
The case for nosferatu
* anywhere means anywhere and therefore includes all possible interpretations of distance. Therefore despite being one word you have a clear statement that you can go wherever you want ignoreing all restrictions.
*while this logic does break the game you shouldn't actually do things like putting it on top of models or inserting into your opponents .... because that breaks the game despite anywhere giving you permission to do so. Essentially some restrictions do apply like placement having to be on the battlefield (but no reason to differentiate them from the ones being ignored)
* ignoring his reasoning due its lack of evidence means you are ignoring the meaning of evidence which means 6 paragraph statements of specific exemptions not "any place" as the dictionary says
The two arguments are not equal but Nosferatu just writes im right because I'm right so no matter what cogent arguments you bring all he's going to say is yes it does, that is false when factually he can't provide a quote with "3"" directly in the quote which is admission that he's wrong before we get to to the game breaking and he won't even try and address the other bullet points just dismiss them because that's what you do when you have no case.
Just as an atheist here, absence of proof is not = proof of the antithesis of said claim. You cannot say Prove it with evidence to someone's totally subjective claim. If I say I do not believe in god, you don't get to say what proof do you have for that belief. That would break all logic. one does not require "proof" for lack of a belief. I think what we have here is a lack of belief as to the intent of a rule. One person asserts what the rule means, that is a positive claim. That person provided evidence why they think it is so. The next person says I remain unconvinced by your proofs, and still choose to believe otherwise. This whole thing has become an argument born out of WELL THATS NOT HOW I PLAY YOU ARE WRONG.
Yeah you will get that at times the trick is to sift through the blurb and try and pull out the key points as I did in the astrixes.
If theirs two sides and one side is not open to honestly discussing it will get bogged down. Doesn't mean both sides are equally right or wrong or that consensus isn't achievable just that sometimes you need to look at the evidence for each argument not weigh it by number of times one person says it.
I would say ignoring deathreaper theirs broad consensus in this thread about what the evidence is. Their are two interpretations and one of those interpretations is weaker in evidence than the other and even deathreaper admitted breaks the game that makes the answer clear
But deathreaper will disagree
I think the other problem in this case is that GW have issued an FAQ rule that essentially makes fortifications unplayable (its why I've seen the tourney circuit house rule against it) and people want to be able to use their models giving them a vested interest in trying to find a way around it. I personally think their cool my void shield generator and battle sanctum are amongst my prettiest models but the answer is to house rule with your gaming group/tourney packs not to apply it, not to try and pretend you have a legitimate reason to allow your fortifications while preventing others. most players are open to it and I heard no objections from the Scottish tourney circuit before lockdown its a bad faq. Because what this is really about is people annoyed that they can't play their expensive cool models.
As with all dicussions on this sub, talk with your opponent before hand.
Now as for me, I don't even have time to get through the first chapter of my "These are the terms by which I play 40k" dissertation on rules interpretation, before my opponent leaves the store.
Coming back with fresh eyes, the "argument" against is pick and choosing where to apply its own interpretation. Apply it evenly or not at all and cop to it having been RAI.
If an explicit call out of "ignore X" is required to ignore the 3" restriction, the malignifier (and ALL other forward deployable forts) must remain in your deployment zone.
Anywhere outside 12" of the enemy deployment zone includes your deployment zone after all, just like it includes the 3" restriction, and it certainly doesn't say you can ignore deployment zone rules.
This gak is what you get when you try to pass RAI off as RAW.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: Coming back with fresh eyes, the "argument" against is pick and choosing where to apply its own interpretation. Apply it evenly or not at all and cop to it having been RAI.
If an explicit call out of "ignore X" is required to ignore the 3" restriction, the malignifier (and ALL other forward deployable forts) must remain in your deployment zone.
Anywhere outside 12" of the enemy deployment zone includes your deployment zone after all, just like it includes the 3" restriction, and it certainly doesn't say you can ignore deployment zone rules.
This gak is what you get when you try to pass RAI off as RAW.
On that point I think your confused or I've misunderstood you
There is no rule that prevents you deploying outwith your deployment zone so you don't need explicit permission to ignore it.
The normal deployment rules give you permission to deploy wholey within the deployment zone if you are deploying using them. They make no reference to outside the deployment zone or alternative deployment methods.
rules permitting you to deploy outwith your deployment zone are common e.g. scouts reserves deepstrikers.
So to deploy outwith the deployment zone all you need is a rule giving you permission e.g. one saying you can deploy anywhere 12" from the enemy.
This is different to the faq 3" which is a quotable restriction that applies to all units with the fortification battlefield role when they are set up on the battlefield regardless of how or when (unless specifically stated otherwise).
So, to summarize what is needed for U02da4's argument to function:
Ignore FAQ entries that existed before the 3" rule. Ignore FAQ entries that have had other sections modified but are unchanged regarding fort deployment. Ignore that new FAQs post change didn't add a 3" requirement or address it in any way. Ignore units with identical rules. Ignore units with rules that specify different restrictions. Ignore units that specify restrictions matching the BRB in contrast to the malignifier. Ignore the part of the fortification rule that allows for other rules to take precedence.
And now, the creme de la creme: Ignore the WHOLE ASS DEPLOYMENT RULES SECTION for all mission types.
So after a Unicorn comes down to guide each player through the unregulated deployment, a functioning game occurs.
Or you could use the verbatim RaW without any further hand waving and you have a terrain piece that goes where you want and a functioning game.
And now we have the "speaking in the third person" stage of the argument. In the interest of civility "addressing the crowd" is not an argument on YMDC, and can be insulting...
So what faq am I ignoring? Or advocating ignoring I haven't mentioned that at all i genuinely don't understand your point
I certainly don't advocate ignoreing unit restrictions at all so that's just wrong I've been arguing throughout you need to follow them
I don't advocate ignoring rules that state they take precedence at all in fact I've been asking for proof of this
I also don't advocate ignoring the deployment section I've pointed out it behaves identically
Yeah that whole summary was a load of rubbish none of that applies at all or is required to make my argument work and certainly noone has established any of those points
Some rules give you permission to do those things. Other rules modify your permissions and restrict you doing things these apply unless the permission specifically names or exempts itself from the restriction.
All faqbrb and codex conform to this without modification
Therefore in relation to fortifications
Any rule giving you permission to deploy whether that be anywhere on the battlefield, wholey within your deployment zone functions subject to relevant restrictions (9"/12" from the enemy (if relevant) 3" from terrain, not ontop of other models or off the board. These restrictions apply unless their is a specific exemption to that restriction) your not ignoring any rule your just following the RAW.
You seem to conflate rules that give you permission with restrictions that prevent you doing something but given you don't evidence any of your points I'm not certain of that
First, any time anything contradicts your position, you claim without evidence that it just doesn't apply. People can go back and read the thread on gnarlmaws, webway gates, faqs, and RAW. They'll see you handwave it away and then claim the opposite is true above. None of the rules comport with your handwaving.
Second, now you want to apply a double standard to restrictions. The deployment rules have no exception clause in-built, but "anywhere" is good enough to ignore this rule. This rule is not permissive, it restricts you to only your zone. The fortification does have an in-built exception, but "anywhere" is no longer acceptable to ignore restrictions.
Again, any time something inconveniently shows you being wrong the. it doesn't apply, or something different applies, or we aren't supposed to use the same rules.
I'm blocking you now and moving on from the thread. There's no arguing with someone to whom nothing is concrete. Hopefully folks get through the whole thing to see why you can deploy anywhere.
Im open to things contradicting me look at the deamons or charging threads were i get contradicted get shown evidence and change my position the difference is they had evidence.
none of those things you listed contradict my position but I don't just dismiss them if it doesn't i say why - although you clearly don't understand so I will waste my breath on this but...
You can read gnarlmores webway Gates etc. They all have no bearing on my position e.g. saying part of the webway rule became redundant when they duplicated it for all fortifications in a later faq doesnt contradict my position
You can apply the principle.
Some rules give you permission to do those things. Other rules modify your permissions and restrict you doing things these apply unless the permission specifically names or exempts itself from the restriction.
They all comport you just dont like the outcome which is not relevant and not proof of a contradiction. They do however often contradict yours when you pick and choose which restrictions to apply.
Anywhere is not an exemption clause so there is no double standard because neither have an exemption clause that requires a statement and anywhere is a word not a statement. it is in fact a double standard to claim anywhere is treated differently from wholly within given neither has an exemption clause (which was why I argued with death reaper that it was a RAI argument about what constitutes a statement and anywhere has no bearing once we established through a dictionary definition that one word wasn't sufficient for a statement)
Given nothing you have presented shows me being wrong or contradicts my position in the slightest its no wonder I don't accept your position while your double standards and flaws in yours show quite clearly
Anywhere includes the distances no one has argued it doesn't- it is not relevant so repeating it doesn't help.
It needs to state that it is exempted from the 3" rule to be exempted from it and it does not
proven
One word is not a statement by the quoted definition earlier
Proven
If restricting anywhere is breaking raw you could put it on other models - which would be breaking raw - and why your answer doesn't work as you have to pick and choose what restrictions to apply
Where as the alternative definition has no such problems
No, it needs to state otherwise
You're fixated on the term "3" " being present, when that is not a requirement of the rule in question
If the MM rule instead said may be placed within 1" of terrain then by your logic it would not override the 3" rule, because it never says 3"
This of course is not how the rule actually works, as has been proven. By stating it may be placed anywhere, which includes within 3" of trrrain, it has stated otherwise
You remain wrong in RAW.
By the way: what about ism is a logical fallacy. Address the rule in question, which without any ambiguity *states otherwise*.
It needs to state and a statement is not one word as proven
It does not have to say 3" but it has to be a clear phrase excluding the restriction
No because if it said explicitly it could be placed within 1" of the terrain it would have a permissive "phrase" that would meet the criteria of a statement meeting the criteria off otherwise stating and would thus ignore the restriction.
Saying that anywhere is a statement that has been proven is a lie the opposite is true. It is not a statement it is a single word by definition it is not a clear phrase overruleing the restriction
I remain correct in RAW as you have disproved nothing I have said under RAW as you have not addressed the arguments. (Because if you did you would understand why a clear statement that you could place within 1"of terrain was an exemption and anywhere is a word and not a clear statement)
The long and short of it is we provided a dictoral definition of a statement anywhere was proven not to meet it. you have not provided any alternative definition of a statement. You have not proven anywhere is a statement just a word and until you do it is irrelevant. only when you prove it meets the criteria of a statement exempting the restriction does the content become relevant. All you can do is show anywhere refers to any part of the board. That is not a clear statement ignoring specifying ot ignores any restriction.
U02dah4 wrote: It needs to state and a statement is not one word as proven
It does not have to say 3" but it has to be a clear phrase excluding the restriction
No because if it said explicitly it could be placed within 1" of the terrain it would have a permissive "phrase" that would meet the criteria of a statement meeting the criteria off otherwise stating and would thus ignore the restriction.
Saying that anywhere is a statement that has been proven is a lie the opposite is true. It is not a statement it is a single word by definition it is not a clear phrase overruleing the restriction
I remain correct in RAW as you have disproved nothing I have said under RAW as you have not addressed the arguments. (Because if you did you would understand why a clear statement that you could place within 1"of terrain was an exemption and anywhere is a word and not a clear statement)
The long and short of it is we provided a dictoral definition of a statement anywhere was proven not to meet it. you have not provided any alternative definition of a statement. You have not proven anywhere is a statement just a word and until you do it is irrelevant. only when you prove it meets the criteria of a statement exempting the restriction does the content become relevant. All you can do is show anywhere refers to any part of the board. That is not a clear statement ignoring specifying ot ignores any restriction.
Where do you get this “rule” that it must specifically be a “clear phrase excluding the restriction” from?
Genuine question, provide evidence of that and I’m all in on your side. If not “anywhere” meaning any-where, from the English, anywhere wins.
The restriciton's own words state that the restriction applies "unless otherwise stated"
Stated definition's:
Cambridge English dictionary - to say or write something, especially clearly and carefully
Oxford English Dictionary - Clearly expressed or identified; specified.
Merriam Webster dictionary - set down explicitly
Dictionary.com - explicitly set forth; declared as fact.
Collins (British English) - explicitly formulated or narrated
Collins (American English) - declared, esp. in specific terms; expressed
Which definition of stated would you like -
"Anywhere" is not clearly expressing or specifying, setting down explicitly, explicitly setting forth, explicitly formulated or declared in specific terms. it can't it is one word.
If you have to reason it out, or justify it, or interpet it, infer it or you claim the word is implying it, by covering the board - you are not meeting any of the above criteria for stateing.
Anywhere does refer to the whole board.
it is not "otherwise stateing" that the restriction does not apply.
So the restriction applies.
I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.
U02dah4 wrote: The restriciton's own words state that the restriction applies "unless otherwise stated"
Stated definition's:
Cambridge English dictionary - to say or write something, especially clearly and carefully
Oxford English Dictionary - Clearly expressed or identified; specified.
Merriam Webster dictionary - set down explicitly
Dictionary.com - explicitly set forth; declared as fact.
Collins (British English) - explicitly formulated or narrated
Collins (American English) - declared, esp. in specific terms; expressed
Which definition of stated would you like -
"Anywhere" is not clearly expressing or specifying, setting down explicitly, explicitly setting forth, explicitly formulated or declared in specific terms. it can't it is one word.
If you have to reason it out, or justify it, or interpet it, infer it or you claim the word is implying it, by covering the board - you are not meeting any of the above criteria for stateing.
Anywhere does refer to the whole board.
it is not "otherwise stateing" that the restriction does not apply.
So the restriction applies.
Sorry not good enough. I think I’m going for that this is unclear until FAQd. Good arguments on both sides but neither clearly wins it. So sort it with your opponent before hand. Sometimes there is no clear answer and this is one of those. I know HIWPI.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.
True but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t ignore that rule.
@kirotheavenger i agree but they don't seem to like it obviously breaks the game as an argument despite being true- so let's settle for it doesn't meet the definition of stated which it obviously doesn’t which ever definition you pick
@ Andy kp you say not good enough I've provided 6 dictoral definitions on each one anywhere does not meet the criteria if your gonna say its not good enough after being provided with the evidence you requested stateing you genuinely wanted to know if their was a case, you need to be specific because its a crystal clear argument. This isn't a case of sometimes theirs no answer
*Anywhere does not meet the criteria for otherwise stated as the RAW requires by the 6 definitions
*Anywhere meeting the definition of stated breaks the game as it grants permission to place models on top of or in models
*The logic behind anywhere breaks the game further as by the same logic advance and fireing/ multi casting psychic power rules don't function
*Requiring a specific statement as the RAW requires does not break the game in anyway
The arguments as have been stated arn't equal
I mean feel free to address any of those points
*Show that anywhere meets any of those 6 definitions of criteria
*Show that you can place your models on top of other models or a reason why anywhere doesn't allow this but does ignore terrain restrictions
*If permission overrides restrictions rather than the other way around demonstrate why advancing prevents firing
*based on the assumption that it is correct that you require a specific exemption - quote any instance where this causes the RAW not to work**
Because currently all 4 key points favour one answer and a vague assertion vigoursly supported is all the evidence for the other. Show those things and the arguments equal if not its one sided
** (Sure in some case people have claimed this is false but no evidence has been provided indicating that is the case only that they don't like the outcome or the circular argument that it is wrong because it doesn't meet their definition of permissive overuleing restrictions)
I'm not convinced by the "it doesn't state otherwise" argument alone.
It clearly states something - that you are able to deploy the Malignifier outside of the enemy deployment zone.
This can be argued, quite easily, to refer to encompass the 3" rule.
However, if you argue that the statement also refers to the 3" rule as a result of stating "anywhere", you must necessarily be arguing that it also allows you to deploy on top of other units. In fact, it would even be referring to placing models on the table.
Therefore, I think it is clear that the Magnifier is only referring to the deployment zone rule. The rule very closely refers to this, allowing a situation which directly contradicts that rule.
However, the Magnifier does not refer very closely to other rules, hence (combined with the situations otherwise created) it should be taken that the Magnifier is not contradicting these other rules.
Yes anywhere 12"from the enemy is permissive and specific about its geographical coverage so yes,
Yes it is not specific with regards to terrain limitations or models so these restrictions apply
im not suggesting the word is extraneous or has no meaning just that it is not a statement with respect to the terrain restriction
The only point I would disagree on is that their is no general deployment rule. Their is no rule that restricts you to deploy in the deployment zone, except a specific restriction if you deploy useing the standard deployment rules. This automatically does not apply to a model deploying by any other means - so they don't need an exemption only permission to deploy by an alternative means.
kirotheavenger wrote: I'm not convinced by the "it doesn't state otherwise" argument alone.
It clearly states something - that you are able to deploy the Malignifier outside of the enemy deployment zone.
This can be argued, quite easily, to refer to encompass the 3" rule.
However, if you argue that the statement also refers to the 3" rule as a result of stating "anywhere", you must necessarily be arguing that it also allows you to deploy on top of other units. In fact, it would even be referring to placing models on the table.
Therefore, I think it is clear that the Magnifier is only referring to the deployment zone rule. The rule very closely refers to this, allowing a situation which directly contradicts that rule.
However, the Magnifier does not refer very closely to other rules, hence (combined with the situations otherwise created) it should be taken that the Magnifier is not contradicting these other rules.
This.
Having read most of the thread, I think U02dah4's interpretation is spot on, the Malignifier is definitely lacking an explicit permission to ignore the 3" rule, "anywhere" is an implicit permission at best.
That said, the whole 3" rule only came to be because of people walling in knights with gnarlmaws using the denizens of the warp stratagem which - you guessed it - allows you to "set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models".
I gotta address the "on to of models" bit. It says to deploy anywhere on the battlefield. The terrain rules (and missions setup) have the battlefield as hills (but seemingly not other terrain) and the space you play on. If you place on a model, this is forbidden as it is not on the battlefield (this also forbids placement on top of non-hill terrain).
kirotheavenger wrote: I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.
If you put the Magnifier on top of a model it would not be on the battlefield, as there would be a model in the way.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.
If you put the Magnifier on top of a model it would not be on the battlefield, as there would be a model in the way.
If you place it so one edge is on a model and the other is on the battlefield, doesn't that satisfy "On the battlefield"?
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield
I'm allowed to deep strike blight lord terminators on top of ruins though, who use the same "anywhere" wording.
I've also done this but without thinking about it. I think the scalable rules (which dictate that you can place infantry/etc models on the top floors and anything on the ground floor) allow for arrival from reserves on that terrain.
The hill rules say "hills are considered a part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature", so... this seems to point to deep strikes only happening on scalable terrain if at all (its not like this is novel, 4th and 5th had models explode if they hit terrain. But I've certainly not been playing it this way thus far).
So not into craters or woods. Scalable also says other models, so the MM would set up on the ground floors of scalable area terrain?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But digging into this more, deep striking may not be allowable on terrain at all if you have to land on the battlefield and the hill rules illuminate that terrain isn't.
GW released a clarification on what charge roll is required if you're charging from a building after deepstrike.
I think it's fairly clear that you can deepstrike into terrain, otherwise they'd have just said "you're not allowed to do that anyway".
If you say an explicit statement is required to overcome a restriction you cannot place on another model because the rules restrict you from doing so and there is no exception in this case. (Their may be an exemption in other cases such as terminators dropping onto the top floor of a building have an exemption in the terrain rules)
If you say anywhere is permissive and refers to anywhere includeing all geography sub distances etc.... and that this is a statement capable of overriding restrictions such as the 3" terrain rule then their is no reason anywhere shouldn't override other restrictions such as placing on models (and the only reason you can't is a restriction)- it is the same logic - by setting a low bar for statement the permissive rule covers all areas of the board includeing those with models on it and ignores the restriction. so you should be able to place your model on another or in it.
Now I would argue this is obviously wrong and that therefore evidence that the second definition is wrong - unless a clear criteria can be put forward why this restriction isn't overridden but the first is
kirotheavenger wrote: GW released a clarification on what charge roll is required if you're charging from a building after deepstrike.
I think it's fairly clear that you can deepstrike into terrain, otherwise they'd have just said "you're not allowed to do that anyway".
I think thats backwards if we're looking at the same FAQ. The chaos terminators are on the board, charging into a ruin. They do later say that you can do this within a large ruin (landing on top and charging to a lower floor) but again, I think this is allowed specifically via "scalable" and not naturally.
Scalable doesn't state the terrain counts as the battlefield though, only that models can be placed on top of it.
It also only states "upper floors" for what it allows - does that mean you're not allowed to deploy or step on the ground floor of a ruin at all? Or more likely is that just generally allowed anyway.
The idea of hills not being terrain is more because they don't give any cover, so the rule is to preclude various factions from getting bonuses for standing in the open on a hill.
As to terrain
By definition in the core rules terrain sits on the battlefield except hills which are part of the battlefield
If it is area terrain you have permission to move " up over or down" this gives you permission to be in it unless otherwise restricted
scalable is a keyworded terrain trait for a restriction that limits what can go on top of terrain - it has no bearing on the ground floor which defaults to the normal area terrain rules unless otherwise restricted
this functions normally if you require a stated exemption to remove a restriction but is a clear example where the permissive anywhere permits your tank to be on the top floor because anywhere overrides restrictions
Ok so having combed the rulebooks on a technical RAW basis assuming you require stated exemptions
models deploying via normal can deploy on any terrain they could be placed on eg top floor if a ruin for infantry as the normal deployment rules do not refer to the battlefield
If deploying by a rule with an area limitation such as strategic reserves that does not refer to the battlefieldso this is also true
If deploying via deep strike rule referencing the battlefield you could only deploy on a hill or the battlefield as hills count as the battlefield
However RAI its pretty clear they can do it and the faq support that so I'm assuming its an oversight from the 8th wording not functioning perfectly in 9th its clearly intended so I would ignore the technical RAW
if you go by the permissive anywhere interpretation restrictions don't apply as anywhere/wholey within overule the restrictions
Any model can setup on the ground floor from the rule. Upper floors have a model type restriction.
Looking above hills, it does seem to suggest that terrain placement is "creating the battlefield". Even though hills rules seem to distinguish between battlefield and terrain.
So I guess, yeah, the MM can set up in terrain (per limitations specified by that terrain's traits, like scalable limiting the MM to the ground floor of area terrain) if terrain is the battlefield. Gnarlmaws would not (even through summoning) as their FAQ dictates 1" away. Webway would have to be 3" per its own rule, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah, aright, the trait assignment section also refers to the whole package of play area and terrain as battlefield as well. Hills rules are the only outlier here from what I can see.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield
I'm allowed to deep strike blight lord terminators on top of ruins though, who use the same "anywhere" wording.
I've also done this but without thinking about it. I think the scalable rules (which dictate that you can place infantry/etc models on the top floors and anything on the ground floor) allow for arrival from reserves on that terrain.
The hill rules say "hills are considered a part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature", so... this seems to point to deep strikes only happening on scalable terrain if at all (its not like this is novel, 4th and 5th had models explode if they hit terrain. But I've certainly not been playing it this way thus far).
So not into craters or woods. Scalable also says other models, so the MM would set up on the ground floors of scalable area terrain?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But digging into this more, deep striking may not be allowable on terrain at all if you have to land on the battlefield and the hill rules illuminate that terrain isn't.
Haha, you're really trying hard making that "on the battlefield" nonsense work, aren't you?
Let's take that apart as well - there are quite a number of warlord traits that you are only allowed "when your warlord is on the battlefield".
So, a space marine captain with "Master of the Codex" is not allowed to roll to regain a command point when he is standing in crater. He also cannot use the adaptive strategy stratagem or call in an orbital strike. And let's hope you aren't playing crusade, because all those guys who managed to survive while standing on terrain won't get any XP.
Thats because noone can see the captain and he has signal interference from the rock, and if your hiding in terrain like a cowardly xenos you don't gain as much experience as a nobel guardsman charging the enemy accross an open field with a bayonet
However when someone is going to try and wheedle the word anywhere into meaning an explicit statement decrying the restrictions they don't like while maintaining the ones they do - why should they not do the same with the word battlefield
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: Any model can setup on the ground floor from the rule. Upper floors have a model type restriction.
Looking above hills, it does seem to suggest that terrain placement is "creating the battlefield". Even though hills rules seem to distinguish between battlefield and terrain.
So I guess, yeah, the MM can set up in terrain (per limitations specified by that terrain's traits, like scalable limiting the MM to the ground floor of area terrain) if terrain is the battlefield. Gnarlmaws would not (even through summoning) as their FAQ dictates 1" away. Webway would have to be 3" per its own rule, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah, aright, the trait assignment section also refers to the whole package of play area and terrain as battlefield as well. Hills rules are the only outlier here from what I can see.
Yes actually, he is not reaponding to the latest post. Battlefield seems to encompass everything, despite the hills rule.
Briefly on Gnarlmaws Jidmah, they can't be killed right (and were irritating/game breaking walls). Whereas the MM can be blown off the table/fought and consolidated through. As a point towards the restrictions being intentionally different.
Two or three, it’s the tangents they go off on the the lengths they all go to try and prove themselves right. I am much more of a common sense kind of player and am happy to change rules that don’t make sense or work, not really RAW.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: Briefly on Gnarlmaws Jidmah, they can't be killed right (and were irritating/game breaking walls). Whereas the MM can be blown off the table/fought and consolidated through. As a point towards the restrictions being intentionally different.
Doesn't matter, both can be deployed "anywhere outside of X". They are the same in that regard, no difference.
This also applies to deploying outside the deployment zone then prior to a game starting. The deployment rules restrict you to X, and X is within anywhere.
Andykp wrote: Two or three, it’s the tangents they go off on the the lengths they all go to try and prove themselves right. I am much more of a common sense kind of player and am happy to change rules that don’t make sense or work, not really RAW.
Which would explain why your answers have not been congruent with the rules - this is a rules forum we don't change rules just because we don't like them. We only clarify what they are. You recognise what they are and then advocate something else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: This also applies to deploying outside the deployment zone then prior to a game starting. The deployment rules restrict you to X, and X is within anywhere.
Their still subject to the 3" terrain restriction as they apply to any fortification regardless of method of deployment unless otherwise stated and they don't state otherwise
I'm all for common sense - but that's not what YMDC is for.
Although in general I think it's best to "rules lawyer" what the RAW is, agreed by 'common sense' what RAI is, then formally houserule it.
Just expecting everyone to agree with you on RAI in every instance is a recipe for disaster.
This thread is actually a great example, common sense tells me that the 3" rule still stands. Obviously that isn't shared though.
Well RAW (Not stated by the 6 definitios) RAI (other interpretation breaks game) and Common sense (we don't want a broken game or picking and choosing of restrictions) all say 3"rule still stands
Vs the anywhere means anywhere which don't meet the definition of stated however argue anywhere overules all restrictions so implies it does but you cant put it on models it doesnt overrule those restrictions that would be silly but can't provide a credible reason to distinguish which restrictions apply and which don't but yeah common sense is on their side because anywhere means anywhere and that was clearly the intention
Really this is about
Lots of players don't like the outcome because the faq rule makes models unplayable and the faq rule is unpopular and their looking for an excuse to ignore it but rather than admit that they are claiming unevidensed RAI/common sense to distort the rules is on an equal footing which is clearly clouding the forum
When Andy kp talks about changing the rules or poorgravitas, talks about a "non functioning game" and "you have a terrain piece that goes where you want and a functioning game" thats what their alluding to but its not a rules answer.
There's a perfectly reasonable HIWPI answer to get around it which is to apply the houserules of the Scottish tourney circuit and ignore the faq entry this frees all fortifications up but if your not going to apply the house rule you can't pick and choose what it applies to models or Restrictions
Can anyone post a link to the data sheet? I don't undertand how this thing doesn't have specific keywords that dictate what it's rules are, ala "Fortification" or "Terrain".
You've been commenting through 5 pages of the thread how can you not have access to the relevant rules - No wonder your input has been useless and just confused the issue.
Certain rules can involve a role against strength but its really rare and none are commonly used or relevant. E.G. BA Magna grapple roles against strength (Not that preventing fallback is important the 8th ed version would have been) but it's not really relevant to the thread
Udah you have been needlessly contentious with everyone in this thread, please stop. You can argue your points, but there is really no need to go personal.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Udah you have been needlessly contentious with everyone in this thread, please stop. You can argue your points, but there is really no need to go personal.
You don't get to claim moral high ground in this, Mr. Kettle.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Welcome to the YMDC forums, where most of the posts are variations of Na'unh/ya-huh!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As with all dicussions on this sub, talk with your opponent before hand.
Now as for me, I don't even have time to get through the first chapter of my "These are the terms by which I play 40k" dissertation on rules interpretation, before my opponent leaves the store.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: And now we have the "speaking in the third person" stage of the argument. In the interest of civility "addressing the crowd" is not an argument on YMDC, and can be insulting...
@ Fezzik
I didn't - a basic point when discussing rules is that you have access to the rules being discussed.
Since you didn't, you have rendered all your contributions (about 8 by my count) to the thread before your last one worthless. Because you cannot possibly judge a complex rules argument about the wording of the rules without the wording. So regardless of what side of an argument you come down on your wrong, not because the answer is wrong, but because your reasoning is not grounded in the rules.
Worthless contributions just take up space and cloud the issue.
That's not a personal comment in that it's not personal to you, I would be making the same comment to anyone that did that in any rules thread.
Also, I haven't approached the thread in hostility - I have countered arguments but I do so in an attempt to get to the right answer that is not the same as being hostile. I haven't insulted people or just told them their wrong without specifying evidence. Contrast that with the responses from the anywhere is anywhere crowd which has been hostile and not addressed the evidence for the most part (largely because the facts don't support their argument). Sure you can call that being contentious but shock discussing the rules sometimes means putting forward contentions supporting with evidence and sticking by them unless that evidence is countered.
The evidence is clear. People persist in advancing assertions without evidence - so I contend them and ask them to address the same points of evidence they have not addressed since the start- and they don't they just make a circular I'm right and your wrong because I'm right and ignore the flaws they can't deal with. So the response will be the same either address the salient points of contention or your response adds nothing to the thread
I mean feel free to address any of those points they are the point none of the anywhere means anywhere crowd have been able to address
1) Show that anywhere meets any of those 6 definitions of criteria
2) Show that you can place your models on top of other models or a reason why anywhere doesn't allow this but does ignore terrain restrictions
3) If permission overrides restrictions rather than the other way around demonstrate why advancing prevents firing
4) based on the assumption that it is correct that you require a specific exemption - quote any instance where this causes the RAW not to work
If they can't address 1) they are wrong under RAW if they can address 1) they need to address either 2) and 3) or 4) to be on an equal RAI footing
Jidmah wrote: I don't get what you are trying to say?
The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.
Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get what you are trying to say?
The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.
Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.
I dont get your point
The FAQ restriction applies to any model with the fortification battlefield role yes
Deployment restrictions apply unless otherwise stated that is clearly part of the restriction
If you cant show anywhere has an unless otherwise stated clause then the restriction applies you can ignore this but not under RAW
Jidmah wrote: I don't get what you are trying to say?
The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.
Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.
Gnarlmaw can be deployed anywhere with denizens of the warp, exactly like the malignifier.
GW introduced this rule to specifically prevent people from exploiting gnarlmaws as indestructible roadblocks, so there is no reason to assume that "anywhere" is intended to ignore it.
We shouldn't be but the anywhere means anywhere crowd do - it's one of the reasons they are wrong
However in the gnarlmore special case
The FAQ entry
Change the last sentence of this unit’s description to read:
‘Each Feculent Gnarlmaw in this unit must be set up within
6" of each other, and none can be set up within 1" of any
terrain feature.’
Meets the criteria for otherwise stateing so the 1" applies not the 3" of the miasmic malignifier
Use this Stratagem during deployment. If you spent 1 CP, set up one of your DAEMON units that has a Power Rating of 8 or less in the warp instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you spent 2 CPs, you can choose a DAEMON unit that has a Power Rating of 9 or more instead. At the end of any of your Movement phases that unit can tear its way into reality – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.
According to the "anywhere" crowd, this allows me ignore both the 1" and 3" rule, because anywhere means anywhere, right?
The 1" was added to the gnarlmaws entry, it is not a rule with an "unless otherwise stated" exception. When placing the gnarlmaw, you can't break the gnarlmaw's own rules on its datasheet.
You're trying to tell us that "anywhere" isn't good enough to ignore the rule with an exception, but is simultaneously good enough to ignore deployment restrictions that have no inbuilt exceptions.
I'm saying that anywhere is good enough to ignore both, that the gnarlmaw and webway already have built in restrictions on top of anywhere that are otherwise stated.
You have to pretzel the application of "anywhere" to have it make sense with deployment, denizens, and the fortification rule. That's not a problem with my argument that's a problem with yours.
Restrictions standardly apply unless a rule tells you not to apply them or gives you permission to do otherwise
The gnarlmore entry is a restriction it meets the criteria of being otherwise stated in relation to terrain and overrules the 3" restriction because it specifically stays that it is overridden by a rule that states otherwise
ergo it is a 1" restriction
Anywhere is never good enough to ignore a restriction in and of itself, there is no pretzeling it does not overrule 3" restriction in any circumstances it does not overrule 1" restriction
If you apply anywhere means anywhere you pretzel on every restriction because their is no reason to treat anywhere different from wholey within
Yeah, that's not how it works. You claim that "anywhere" allows you to ignore restrictions where you can place models. There have been plenty of counter-examples to prove that this interpretation is wrong, in addition to the clear RAI communicated by the developers for why the 3" distance to nearby terrain was introduced - they don't want you to use terrain to wall off parts of the board.
Either anywhere is anywhere, or it is subject to additional restrictions.
U02dah4's and my interpretation consistently applies restriction like 3" or 1" away from terrain, not top of other models, not on scaleable terrain nor in any other illegal way.
Your argumentation claims that you can randomly ignore one specific restriction, but fails to provide a reason why it cannot ignore other limitations.
Oh, and if the gnarlmaw example is too complicated to understand for you because of the 1" rule added, use a mekboy workshop coming out of a tellyporta instead. Same "anywhere" wording.
If you're going to claim that I'm "randomly" ignoring a rule that starts with "Unless otherwise stated" I don't think there's much point arguing it with you. You clearly aren't reading the fortification rule as it is written. I don't know what you want it to read as, and I frankly don't care.
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
That is false, it has not been proven, even though you think it has.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?
This thread is about 2 pages too long, and should have been locked already.
Anywhere = anywhere legal (see all other rules regarding legal placement)
Anywhere is not permissive to do anything, just means you can stick it outside your deployment zone if you want and follow all other relevant rules.
Besides the contagion range is plenty to cover objectives, other terrain, and the furnace can be placed to protect the Malignifer. Which makes this unit perfectly playable.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?
You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?
No, he means the mek boy shop tellyporta which launches a bunch of models that become obstacles 9" in front of your models on turn 2. So, things you can move over and don't actually break the game at all.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
The 6 definitions were not created by me
They were 6 of the most commonly used dictionaries definitions of what the word actually means. Now you can argue that GW used the wrong word. But as far as I am aware GW do not provide their own dictionary. They do however use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to write their rules, so any dictionary should suffice, yet alone 6 of the most commonly used - I also quoted which dictionaries each quote was from so you can look them up online to verify them - Now if you want to quote an alternate definition from a reputable dictionary be my guest, no one has. However you cannot argue that I am making up the meaning of the word and expect us to take your argument seriously. If you just make up the meaning of words sure you can get them to mean whatever you want but if you have to do that your answer has no bearing on the actual rules.
Currently, your argument amounts to - My answer is wrong according to all 6 dictionaries! but I define what the word means and you cant prove those dictionaries define what words mean in the English language. Only GW can. So despite them all saying I'm wrong. Really I'm right and you cant prove otherwise. So are arguments are equal.
Or I'm admitting I'm proven wrong because I can't meet those definitions but I will declare myself the winner and attack the definitions.
LOL
So yes to not apply the 3" restriction it needs to be stated otherwise and anywhere does not meet any of the definitions of stated.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?
You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?
It was pointed out that actually, it does count as on the battlefield evidenced by the logic that a cup of tea being put on a coaster being on a table - the cup of tea is still on the table.
Numerous rules such as the chargeing from DSFAQ and aura/special rules that apply only if the character is still on the battlefield were shown to still apply if a character is on terrain like a ruin in a sense the battlefield can be viewed as anywhere within the rectangular space regardless of verticality.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
The 6 definitions were not created by me
They were 6 of the most commonly used dictionaries definitions of what the word actually means. Now you can argue that GW used the wrong word. But as far as I am aware GW do not provide their own dictionary. They do however use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to write their rules, so any dictionary should suffice, yet alone 6 of the most commonly used - I also quoted which dictionaries each quote was from so you can look them up online to verify them - Now if you want to quote an alternate definition from a reputable dictionary be my guest, no one has. However you cannot argue that I am making up the meaning of the word and expect us to take your argument seriously. If you just make up the meaning of words sure you can get them to mean whatever you want but if you have to do that your answer has no bearing on the actual rules.
Currently, your argument amounts to - My answer is wrong according to all 6 dictionaries! but I define what the word means and you cant prove those dictionaries define what words mean in the English language. Only GW can. So despite them all saying I'm wrong. Really I'm right and you cant prove otherwise. So are arguments are equal.
Or I'm admitting I'm proven wrong because I can't meet those definitions but I will declare myself the winner and attack the definitions.
LOL
So yes to not apply the 3" restriction it needs to be stated otherwise and anywhere does not meet any of the definitions of stated.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?
You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?
It was pointed out that actually, it does count as on the battlefield evidenced by the logic that a cup of tea being put on a coaster being on a table - the cup of tea is still on the table.
Numerous rules such as the chargeing from DSFAQ and aura/special rules that apply only if the character is still on the battlefield were shown to still apply if a character is on terrain like a ruin in a sense the battlefield can be viewed as anywhere within the rectangular space regardless of verticality.
Sorry, I was just messing with you. I think 6 pages is enough now.
U02dah4 wrote: Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets
The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.
What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?
You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.
Please don't repeat debunked arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CEO Kasen wrote: ...I feel like I've just watched two teams of zen monks furiously debate over the sound of one buttcheek clapping.
That would make great people flooding YMDC with "LoL, YMDC stoopid, me smart!" exactly what in your metaphor?
This is a forum for discussing rules, if you have a problem with people discussing rules don't read it, and more importantly, don't post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: No, he means the mek boy shop tellyporta which launches a bunch of models that become obstacles 9" in front of your models on turn 2. So, things you can move over and don't actually break the game at all.
So, I'm allowed to deploy the mek worshop balanced on top of two of my battlewagons, correct?
Yeah seconding jidmah here this thread has a lot of wasted space due to
# people complaining at the process of rules discussion (takes up room adds nothing)
# people making a substantial volume of comments then announcing they did not have access to the rules (clouds the thread with worthless opinions that misleads people)
# people trolling the thread "Sorry, I was just messing with you. I think 6 pages is enough now." (I mean just shame on you) (especially as doing so makes the people who have a clearly wrong answer think they have a lot more support than they do)
This is very disappointing as it makes it difficult for people trying to find the correct rules answer - which is the purpose of YMDC thread - to help people.
Jidmah wrote: It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.
No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.
A Sacristan Forgeshrine is a model according to its own datasheet and the terrain feature rules. It has the scalable keyword. A space marine captain on top of scalable terrain has been proven to be on the battlefield. Therefore models can be placed on models (unless specified otherwise) and models which are placed on other models are considered to be on the battlefield.
Jidmah wrote: It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.
No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.
Core rules
"TERRAIN FEATURES
The scenery on a battlefield can be represented by models from the Warhammer 40,000 range. These models are called terrain features to differentiate them from the models that make up an army"
Terrain features are models not all models are terrain features
Jidmah wrote: It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.
No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.
Core rules
"TERRAIN FEATURES The scenery on a battlefield can be represented by models from the Warhammer 40,000 range. These models are called terrain features to differentiate them from the models that make up an army"
Terrain features are models not all models are terrain features
Obviously it's not a literal translation of 40k rules.
However, it is demonstrating that you can be on something without being in direct contact.
I'm also sitting *on* my chair, despite there being at least two layers of cloth between my body and the chair.
Just like a Malignifier will be on the battlefield even if there's a Rhino between it and physically touching the table.
The FAQ proves that deepstriking onto a ruin is legal according to GW.
Deepstriking uses pretty much the same wording - set the unit up *on the battlefield*.
Clearly if it works for ruins (which per the above are also models) it works for other models as well.
you cannot put things on models without explicit permission
So you cannot put things on a land raider as you don't have permission
Their are explicit exceptions to this rule such as the area terrain and or scalable rules that allow you to put your models on the other models such as ruins and thats ok as because they specifically state otherwise (an exception)
It all works and its all coherent
The problem is if you take the anywhere means anywhere argument that it bypasses the 3" rule because it gives permission to deploy anywhere. Then by the same argument should it not also grant permission to deploy on other models because that is anywhere. Which is an enormous hole in your argument
Jidmah wrote: It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.
No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.
A Sacristan Forgeshrine is a model according to its own datasheet and the terrain feature rules. It has the scalable keyword. A space marine captain on top of scalable terrain has been proven to be on the battlefield.
Therefore models can be placed on models (unless specified otherwise) and models which are placed on other models are considered to be on the battlefield.
Or, in other words, you are wrong.
"After this model is set up, it becomes an area terrain feature...". Area terrain has a permissive rule that allow you to move on it (scalable). Does a land raider have a permissive rule that lets you move on it?
I like how you have, on this last stand argument against, incorporated the wording (unless otherwise stated) that doesn't exist in rules governing placement but does exist in the fortification rule. Really brings us full circle to how simple the argument for is and how escher like the argument against has gotten.
Sorry PoorGravitasHandling, I really think you are trying to have an honest discussion here, but from the complete disconnect of your answers to what you are responding to I can only assume you simply don't understand the arguments that are presented to you and/or are unable to respond to them.
Therefore, I really don't think there is any point in continuing this with you.
Summary of the thread so far: - The Seeded Growth rule has the same wording as various stratagems which allow you to deep strike certain fortifications (Denizens of the Deep, Tellyporta). Everything true for deep striking is also true for the deployment of the Miasmic Malignifier and vice versa. - The rule has no specific instructions to ignore the 3" minimum distance to other terrain. - We know that RAI is that the 3" rule is supposed to affect deep striking terrain, as it was explicitly made in response to people using deep striking terrain in an unforeseen way. - "anywhere" does not give permission to ignore every and all restrictions on deployment, as that assumption would not only cause unintuitive behavior, but also causes multiple game-breaking issues. - Anything within the battlefield edges is on the battlefield.
I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago
U02dah4 wrote: I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago
Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.
DeathReaper wrote: That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.
Citation needed.
I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot ask for proof of a negative. That is logically impossible.
"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[9] Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Euclid's theorem, which proves that that there is no largest prime number, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."
Thr problem with that interpretation of "anywhere" is that it's an argument of special pleading.
You argue that anywhere means anywhere when it comes to placing it near terrain.
But it no longer means anywhere when it comes to placing it on other models.
U02dah4 wrote: I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago
Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.
I really do wonder why you bother posting stuff like this when you clearly haven't even checked the rules whether you have any support for your claims.
DeathReaper wrote: That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.
Citation needed.
I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.
I actually was asking for proof of you ever backing down from an argument.
You still clinging to the anywhere nonsense despite the argument having been refuted in three different ways is exactly what I expect from you.
kirotheavenger wrote: Thr problem with that interpretation of "anywhere" is that it's an argument of special pleading. You argue that anywhere means anywhere when it comes to placing it near terrain. But it no longer means anywhere when it comes to placing it on other models.
Only because the game breaks if you place a model on top of a Land Raider. If the game didn't break, you could place it on top of the Land Raider without issue because of the words "Anywhere" because it is otherwise stated that you can place them anywhere.
U02dah4 wrote: I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago
Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.
I really do wonder why you bother posting stuff like this when you clearly haven't even checked the rules whether you have any support for your claims.
DeathReaper wrote: That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.
Citation needed.
I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.
I actually was asking for proof of you ever backing down from an argument.
You still clinging to the anywhere nonsense despite the argument having been refuted in three different ways is exactly what I expect from you.
At this point anyone with a brain cell knows deathreaper is wrong - his allies came out as a troll and someone who didn't have access to the rules- His argument has been refuted in three different ways.
He has nothing more to add because in 7 pages he has provided no evidence and made no attempt to refute any of the three proofs that he is wrong
Its time to just acknowledge that miasmic malignifier can't be placed within 3" of terrain and just ignore any further comments from deathreaper its not worth the characters and he is not going to change his mind even if GW printed a statement deathreaper is wrong in capitals in the next FAQ
He won't address any of this he will just post something idiotic like stop claiming things that arn't true with no evidence to support his point - just dont waste your time it only encourages him and you have nothing to answer unless he presents proof and he can't
U02dah4 wrote: At this point anyone with a brain cell knows deathreaper is wrong - his allies came out as a troll and someone who didn't have access to the rules- His argument has been refuted in three different ways.
