Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Balance wrote:

Stelek wrote:Maybe you noticed GW shut down it's message boards because stupid threads like this one would occur 2,3,4,5 times a day.

I thought they said it was because "other internet communities did a better job."

What they said in public and in private are indeed two different things.

KiMonarrez wrote:You know, Snoog, back when 3.0 came out, it sure was implied that you'd have to keep updating that liscense. I remember talking it over with all the other users of 2.0 at my FLGS. Some were looking forward to it, some weren't. Most of the guys that were turned off by it was due to the implication that you'd have to continue paying for it. I, personally, had exactly ZERO problems with 2.0 and really didn't see the point in getting the new one if the old one worked just fine. In fact, I'd still be using it today if I hadn't lost it.

See, as a rule, I don't buy the newest thing, just cause it's newer than than what I have that happens to still work. I still have and use the cell phone I bought in 2000. Still works JUST FINE. Don't NEED that new razor or iPhone.

So explain to me, use small words if you feel the need, exactly HOW I don't have the right, or not feel the need to complain about a product I payed good money for, that DIDN'T WORK AT ALL. And don't give me that crap about it being User Error. I bought Chaos Gate back in the day. I know what a crap application looks like. And if 90% of the time the program crashed after it started launching, for 2-3 weeks. Didn't matter if I uninstalled and reinstalled (cause it wouldn't run). Uninstalled and redownloaded and reinstalled (because even the DEMO woundn't run). Uninstalled, redownloaded, reinstalled and hopped on my right foot. It wouldn't run.

On a WHIM, I wanted to see what the other skins looked like, so I downloaded a skin. Much to my surprise, AB launched to download the skin. AB worked just fine after that. I decided I didn't like the office skin, so I changed back... and guess what. AB woulnd't launch. I downloaded another different skin (the green one), and AB works. So it's plain for me to see that something about the default skin causes AB to crash on this computer, and that kinda sucks, as I like the blue background.

Explain to me again, how that's USER ERROR? Seriously, I want to read your rationale on this.

I need a good laugh.

As for the mindset/policy of the maintainers. That's plain for all to see from their posts, and not just from responses to me.

Now where's that Ignore button.

AB3 was a large step up from 2 even if you don't think so, and really it is your fauilt for losing the disk to AB2 so you would have had to replace it with something. All your ranting about how you were failed by the company comes from expectations that do not match reality, sure they said that the license would have to be renewed every year for the easy access, I purchased it when it first came out with the understanding that I would just have to update manually when the license ran out. It was clear to me at the time, so that would be your misconception that you had to pay each year.

Your errors with it crashing depending on the skin are limited to yourself as far as I can tell, who else is having this problem? Your extreme reaction to people pointing out they don't have problems with AB like you do means that you are taking the problem personally, and your ranting about how AB is a faulty product when you are the only one with that problem indicates that you most likely have something on your computer that is causing the problem. I'm not going to review the thread to see if you ranted about trying to get your money back, but when it first installed and failed to work did you cancel your payment ro try to return the product? You mentioned downloading a skin on a whim and installing it to a program that you said didn't work. That doesn't even make sense.

I never said you could not complain or that you needed the latest and greatest, that's all up to you, but ranting and raving about a problem that only you have makes it look like you are the problem you are having. Also asking for an explination and then saying "Where is that ignore button" is both condescending. It's like saying "Tell me your opionion, but first I'm going to hang up".

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:But, How does the users's opponent know about the issue in the first place then. If say you wanted this approach and generated a list allowing the PK in the Shooty mob and then go to an event that disallows it but you show the list and they see its from AB and its marked valid and it gets through you get something that was disallowed. (Call that the Organizer's fault as they didn't catch it)

Yes, that would be the organizer's fault. As I mentioned before, AB40k datafiles are capable of producing illegal lists, even though the goal is that they're not going to. Furthermore, anyone who wants to cheat is capable of producing an HTML file and editing anything they want into it. Anyone who trusts an opponent's list simply because it was AB printed is a fool. Either you trust your opponent as a human being, or you check their stuff for yourself.

Ok, I see your point, but disagree with it. All because you may or may not trust your opponent doesn't always grant you the ability to validate their army list. I personally do not own every single Codex in the game (I have most, but not all) and this prevents me from truly validating my opponents list. If my opponent went out of his/her way to cheat and edited a lists html output, I would likely never know. This is why I do not advocate that method of updating a perceived error. Write in on the output in pencil and then discuss it. Your approach keeps potential hot issues hidden from everyone as although you may agree with Interpretation A; your opponent may not even know about it and may not know if there is even an issue to want to contest it. By flagging it as an error and having that print, your opponent is made aware of the issue in which case you get the opportunity to discuss and agree or not. But your method prevents this, and your recommendation to everyone else is to just edit the output file itself. This isn't the way it should work.

@Stelek

Well, Christ, man. They put out FAQ's that were painfully obviously shoddy afterthoughts which did nothing BUT generate questions. Bit OT, but I remember the time span in there with the Dark Angels FAQ and the inquisition books. In our original codex, we coudn't have any allies. Then daemonhunters came out, and we could (per the RAW, way against the fluff though) have allies. Then they posted a new FAQ that expressly contradicted EVERYTHING in the Daemonhunter codex about allies (for Dark Angels anyway), so then you're left with trying to figure out which one is right. As you have 2 official sources saying 2 polar opposites are legal. WTF?!?! And then witchhunters came out and allies were legal, and they didn't update the FAQ again.

So which did you go with? The 100% legal RAW of no allies in the FAQ? Or the 100% legal RAW of allies allowed in 2 different codex?

Of course they were flooded with questions. They painted themselves into that corner. No matter what they said in public or private, they did it to themselves and have nobody else to blame.

Stelek wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Not flagging it as illegal is what I believe to be the more useful behaviour, that is correct.
It's only when the tool is more restrictive than the user that you get usage problems.

No matter how you put it, it's whining to get your way.

Sooner or later, the answer you are going to get is 'tough' followed by silence.

Explain to me, please, how this was a useful comment? Honestly, you should at least have the decency to address the point Redbeard has made; rather than choosing to simply make a futile attempt at imposing your will via excessive abrasion. I honestly hope your arrogance is founded on some form of substantive talent, because clearly you hold an opinion of yourself which does not seem commensurate with your capacity to debate a given issue. Its almost as though you know that your point is indefensible, and so simply choose to lable dissenting perspectives as insignificant so you aren't forced to consider the validity of your own assumptions.

KiMonarrez wrote:@Stelek

Well, Christ, man. They put out FAQ's that were painfully obviously shoddy afterthoughts which did nothing BUT generate questions. Bit OT, but I remember the time span in there with the Dark Angels FAQ and the inquisition books. In our original codex, we coudn't have any allies. Then daemonhunters came out, and we could (per the RAW, way against the fluff though) have allies. Then they posted a new FAQ that expressly contradicted EVERYTHING in the Daemonhunter codex about allies (for Dark Angels anyway), so then you're left with trying to figure out which one is right. As you have 2 official sources saying 2 polar opposites are legal. WTF?!?! And then witchhunters came out and allies were legal, and they didn't update the FAQ again.

So which did you go with? The 100% legal RAW of no allies in the FAQ? Or the 100% legal RAW of allies allowed in 2 different codex?

Of course they were flooded with questions. They painted themselves into that corner. No matter what they said in public or private, they did it to themselves and have nobody else to blame.

Last published document is always the most current and as such would take precedence.

Or we DA players could just notice that the FAQ's were 75% crap as they had the janitor do them. That was the impression I got reading through it anyways.

KiMonarrez wrote:Or we DA players could just notice that the FAQ's were 75% crap as they had the janitor do them. That was the impression I got reading through it anyways.

As a DA player myself, I understand the frustration, however that doesn't change the standing from GW that the last published document is the current rules that should be followed. Any other interpretation is no longer using the rules as outlined by GW and has instead devolved into a house rules game. There is nothing wrong with that, except when playing at sanctioned events, you would have to change your lists to be valid based on the last document rules.

Sorry dogma, about 2-3 pages ago I put up or shut up.

Redbeard didn't answer.

So, my output went from useful to less-than-useful in direct lockstep with the other posters in this thread.

As soon as he answers any of my questions without telling everyone the maintainers suck azz, I'll probably go back to being slightly more useful.

Hope that answers your question to some degree.

Yeah, well then how much of the FAQ would then remain valid? I vaguely recall there being a ruling in that FAQ about a ravenwing techmarine that was painfully obviously against the RAW in the DA codex itself. It created a problem out of thin air.

This was what GW did to us. Support of their product, any product for that matter, should not be an afterthought. It's just bad business.

KiMonarrez wrote:Yeah, well then how much of the FAQ would then remain valid? I vaguely recall there being a ruling in that FAQ about a ravenwing techmarine that was painfully obviously against the RAW in the DA codex itself. It created a problem out of thin air.

This was what GW did to us. Support of their product, any product for that matter, should not be an afterthought. It's just bad business.

I agree, but you seem to be taking that attitude out on the users here in this forum. None of us, that I know of, are GW employees and therefore none of us to responsible for the issues that GW may or may not have caused due to the poorly written gaming material. We as gamers simply try to get along within the boundaries that the rules have identified. I am sorry that these boundaries have prevented you from a good time.

Redbeard wrote: Furthermore, anyone who wants to cheat is capable of producing an HTML file and editing anything they want into it.

Or they can write their own AB datafiles.

@jlong05

What gives you that idea? I understand that GW put out a crap product. I understand (from reading the rules discussion you guys have been going through), that the rules interpretation can go either way. You (the maintainers) don't know if it's 100% legal. You also don't if it's not. You just don't know.

I disagree with the policy to remove the option from the end user as you're not sure. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're sure. If I were an ork player, I'd want the option (and not have to do it the soooooooooper secret way). I chafe at the idea of someone else making the choice for me. If back in the day (and I don't recall if this were the case) AB took away my daemonhunter allies due to the painfully obviously wrong FAQ, and the maintainers refused, I'd take umbrage.

That's my issue. I disagree with taking the "strictest RAW interpretation" on an issue that's not an open and shut case. If AB were to prevent me from taking a razorback for a 10 man codex tac squad... I'm fine with that. That's 100% against the RAW. On things you're really not sure about, I don't like that the decision is made for me.

I like the lists I play with to have a nice "finished look" to them, and don't like the idea of pen and inking in something that I believe should be there (and I abhor the idea of being beardy/cheesy in rules interpretations). Especially if I payed for a tool that should acomplish the finished look I want.

After over a decade of being a pen, paper and codex to excel using player, I finally bit the bullet and bought a copy of Army builder (3). It's the first piece of software that I own that hasn't crashed or given me a "windows must close, we are sorry ..." message.

I had no problem giving an ork shoota nob a klaw (guess I found the soooooper secret option switch by accident), the only issue I had was finding how to switch the SM traits option on.

I'm a TO, myself. I needed a tool to assist me in validating submitted army lists. AB does this very well, and is reasonably painless. The relevant codex is alway by my side when checking lists, but it makes it easier to spot the "Say what?" moments.

If I knew html better, I would write my own stuff - but after doing up custom macros for excel for years that did a similar thing, I'm getting too old for this crap.

I like that other people with more time/enthusiasm are writing/maintaining the files for this product, and I applaud them for it.

I come from a generation where if you didn't like something, YOU either did it yourself,, or put up until someone else did, rather than just endlessly whine and bitch about it.

KiMonarrez wrote:@jlong05

What gives you that idea? I understand that GW put out a crap product. I understand (from reading the rules discussion you guys have been going through), that the rules interpretation can go either way. You (the maintainers) don't know if it's 100% legal. You also don't if it's not. You just don't know.

I disagree with the policy to remove the option from the end user as you're not sure. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're sure. If I were an ork player, I'd want the option (and not have to do it the soooooooooper secret way). I chafe at the idea of someone else making the choice for me. If back in the day (and I don't recall if this were the case) AB took away my daemonhunter allies due to the painfully obviously wrong FAQ, and the maintainers refused, I'd take umbrage.

That's my issue. I disagree with taking the "strictest RAW interpretation" on an issue that's not an open and shut case. If AB were to prevent me from taking a razorback for a 10 man codex tac squad... I'm fine with that. That's 100% against the RAW. On things you're really not sure about, I don't like that the decision is made for me.

I like the lists I play with to have a nice "finished look" to them, and don't like the idea of pen and inking in something that I believe should be there (and I abhor the idea of being beardy/cheesy in rules interpretations). Especially if I payed for a tool that should acomplish the finished look I want.

OK. If you havnt been pointing fingers at the datafiles then, my mistake. But honestly it's getting very old about how its a sooooooooooper secret way to get the Klaw. It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error. It never was a secret to do it. You just have to do the unit a specific way for the possibility to even have a chance. Again, this goes to the LOGIC flows I posted about yesterday. If you had followed those flows you would see you CANNOT do the upgrade at all one way, and you MIGHT be able to do it the otherway given a loose interpretation of the rules and English language.

Now I refuse to get back into this argument again. It served no purpose before, as you and others complained, INCORRECTLY, that the issue was because the Klaw was not available and should be available (but flagged), when the REAL issue, as identfied by the OP is quite clearly that it WAS being flagged and he disagreed with that and removed the warning as his interpretation says it is legal. The issue now is that we have one set of files that say the Klaw is 100% legal now(developed and released by the OP) and one set of files that says its an error based on RAW.

This is a perfect example of how these datafiles will NEVER meet everyones needs and therefore create more problems than they are worth.

As for the FAQ issue, the maintainers are not here to interpret the minds of the GW game designers. They are here to implement the rules, however unhappy it makes them, so everyone is provided the same rule set to keep things fair. This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

jlong05 wrote:
This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

Yeah, good luck with that.

KiMonarrez wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Man my grammar and spelling was bad there. What it was meant to say is, that since we are unable to read the minds of the game developers we are not supposed to try to interpret what they meant, but instead simply follow RAW as closely as possible.

As for good luck on that, I will say thanks.

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Buoyancy -
Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Post me a link where I can get your 40k AB files, and I will stop thinking you are being a little too high-handed in your estimation of others skills.

The AB40k files are a little out of date, there are a few little issues with some of the options, but...........

It's like the people who slag off at Windows as an Operating System, who talk about how 'Bill Gates is a tyrannical Gakhead"

Design a better, more universally accepted and used OS, or shut up for heck's sake.

The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

That really got up my nose mate. Post a link of your own version, or shut the Gak up.

And if you mean by the 'Community' everyone, including yourself...........

Buoyancy wrote:

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error.

I'm not convinced. I'm also a patent attorney, with a computer science undergrad degree; I like to think my reading comprehension is a touch higher than that of a 5 year old, thanks.



Someday, people will realize that resorting to insults does not bolster their arguments....

Buoyancy wrote:

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriately as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Honestly, I have no idea how I should respond to this. It’s obvious your intent is little more than an effort to create some sort of flame war here. Your comments have no additional useful content, and oddly enough, I think you accomplished insulting every other member of the forums here as in your opinion they must not have greater comprehension than that of a five year-old. As for my education level and your comments thereof, I am certain my college professors would take offense to the accusations.

Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

You are fully entitled to your opinions, and I am glad you have them, but this thread further proves that even the sentiment of those for the rule are not equal. On one side of the fence you have the Maintainers and other players that say its against RAW(From strict English Rules), on the other side you actually have 2 different groups. Group A, simply wants the option included for the Klaw, and it to flag as an error so that in games they have the option to include the Klaw and discuss the matter with their opponent. Group B, which the OP and it appears, yourself also, want the option to be included with no error flagged.

I honestly have no understanding of why this would be the case as there clearly is a discrepancy in the rule for it and it should be addressed in EVERY game played, but if the error flag were removed no one would know of the issue on the wording and therefore it would kept hidden from the opponent.

It's simple.

You leave the option in. People who think that Shootas can't have a PK Nob won't take it, people who do think they can will.

Everyone wins. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

BYE

jlong05 wrote:
Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

It isn't a loose interpretation of English, it's a common sense interpretation. Your interpretation of the sentence invents a restriction where none exists.

If you say everyone must exchange X for Y, the fact that some people don't have X does not invalidate the instruction. You keep using biased language, calling the alternative interpretation 'loose English'. It isn't loose English, it's English that we use every day.

In the military, sometimes they change the standard issue gear. Not all troopers are issued standard issue gear, some have specialist equipment. When the command makes the proclaimation that the entire army must upgrade their M16- to a M16-1a does the existence of soldiers who don't have an M16 to begin with invalidate this instruction? No, it doesn't. Everyone who has the M16 goes to the armoury and gets a new gun, and those who weren't issued the M-16 to begin with don't do anything.

Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

It isn't a loose interpretation of English, it's a common sense interpretation. Your interpretation of the sentence invents a restriction where none exists.

If you say everyone must exchange X for Y, the fact that some people don't have X does not invalidate the instruction. You keep using biased language, calling the alternative interpretation 'loose English'. It isn't loose English, it's English that we use every day.

In the military, sometimes they change the standard issue gear. Not all troopers are issued standard issue gear, some have specialist equipment. When the command makes the proclaimation that the entire army must upgrade their M16- to a M16-1a does the existence of soldiers who don't have an M16 to begin with invalidate this instruction? No, it doesn't. Everyone who has the M16 goes to the armoury and gets a new gun, and those who weren't issued the M-16 to begin with don't do anything.

Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

Understand, I see your point, but you are interpretting it on real life examples and not on the rules as outlined by GW. GW has had a very strict view of the rules for a number of years now which is what causes that strict assessment of the rule. Also, I have been very clear that I believe the PKs are valid, but by the strict rules interpretation that GW uses to evaluate the game, they are not. This is why they get flagged as an error. When GW gets off their duff, and fixes the issue with a clear FAQ then it can be fixed, but it is GW that sets the standard. Not the players. The players however are free to adapt the rules as they see fit, but that doesn't always mean that the adapted rule will be allowed in all cases, such as some friendly games, and some tournaments.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's simple.

You leave the option in. People who think that Shootas can't have a PK Nob won't take it, people who do think they can will.

Everyone wins. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

BYE

I think the issue now is that it gets flagged as an error which is printed out. The OP, and a few others, don't want this as it indicates the error and they don't believe it is an error.

Buoyancy wrote:The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

I don't see you volunteering to start another group of people who will spend their free time working on 40k files. Why don't you "put your money where your mouth is"? Just download ABCreator, and start building your own files - there's nothing stopping you.

It's comments like this that sometimes make me wonder why the maintainers bother. It's comments like this that make me wonder why I give my time and money over to running the www.ab40k.org site (and before me there was Warmonger, and before that Imhotep - hopefully I haven't forgotten anyone; and of course not forgetting the maintainers and testers too). Then I remember all the people who use the files and don't make asinine comments like this, and that the people who think they can makes demands when they haven't even got the motivation to do something for themselves are a minority, and so I'll keep the site running at my own expense and I'll continue to help out the ab40k maintainers and testers when I can.

So are you going to create your own 40k files for AB? If you think you can do a better job, go ahead and prove it.

Redbeard wrote:
Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

"Entire" already infers "every member". Your use of "every member of the entire mob" is simply using one term to reinforce another, and is unnecessary. If the codex didn't use "entire" then there'd be a RaW point for allowing the PK, but the fact that "entire" is used makes it obvious, at least to me and others, that it does require every member to have that weapon. If it wasn't intended that way, why use "entire"? And as to the "may", it's obvious that it gives the option of either upgrading the mob or not upgrading - it's not a per model permissive, it's for the "entire" mob. If it stated "must" instead "may" (as suggested as the required term in an earlier post) then that would mean that you could never keep the original weapons the squad has.

What makes you think that "entire" doesn't mean "every member"? After all, if it wasn't every member, it wouldn't be the "entire mob", it would only be a "majority of the mob", or "almost all of the mob", or some other term that referred to less than the whole. Have you checked for dictionary definitions of "entire"; eg.

"having all the parts or elements; whole; complete:"

Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Here's some translation tips, courtesy of Peter Suber, that people unfamiliar with logic expressed in natural (English) language can use to understand how to read (and model) rules.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm

Buoyancy wrote:Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Your insults and attacks are completely against Rule #1 here at Dakka. You can definitely read them all here

Failure to adhere to the rules here at Dakka can result in temporary suspensions and eventually a ban.

And to jlong05, I appreciate your calm and thought out response to the offending post.

Ha, I hate to get into YMDC debates but Spack's pretty much said what I was going to say. Given the way GW writes its rules, which may not agree with formal logic, the only reason they ever say "may" is because if they said "must" there'd be no point in writing the option in the first place. GW tends to write "up to x number of models may replace..." if they want to give you anything but an either-or option.

Spack wrote:Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Sure it does, if that model is not part of the "entire mob" in question, then ignoring that model as irrelevant is correct. The term "entire mob" is qualified by the possession of "sluggas and choppas". The entire phrase used for the option is simply the generalization of the construction "up to x models may exchange y for z", and taking terms out of their context naturally yields the wrong information.

stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.