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.

puma713 wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not going to argue with you because you're someone who already has their mind made up. That's not an argument, and it's barely even a discussion.

I believe my argument to be the strongest in this thread, but if someone were to point out a flaw in it, I would change my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This whole thread does indeed stink of "I'm right and I need others to agree with me", rather than a rules query

This whole thread stinks of "I am nosferatu1001 and I am wrong but slinging insults is easier than defending my position".

If you can find any rules to support your point of view, I'll throw you a parade.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.

Right. That was my point in detailing the differences in the definition of 'selection'.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.
However, GW is known for their inconsistent language in the past and using non exact language to reference the same thing (even in the force organization restrictions where you are told to make choices from grey boxes, but make compulsory selections for black boxes. Further, you condition that both rules make reference to a selection simply as "something you select" as opposed to a specific noun "Force Organization chart selection" in the priest rule. While I don't fault you for making that assumption, it is still an assumption and no matter how much you want it to be right by default, it simply isn't.

I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

ph34r - others HAVE pointed out the flaw in your argument. You then state it isnt a flaw, and we go back round again

Sorry, your shouting the loudest hasnt worked. THis thread can die now, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - others HAVE pointed out the flaw in your argument. You then state it isnt a flaw, and we go back round again

Sorry, your shouting the loudest hasnt worked. THis thread can die now, no?

Others have said that they think the wording too ambiguous to argue on.

I simply look at the wording and repeat what it says.

An unwillingness to look at the rules at a high level of detail, does not render the result of a detailed analysis invalid.

ph34r wrote:

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.
However, GW is known for their inconsistent language in the past and using non exact language to reference the same thing (even in the force organization restrictions where you are told to make choices from grey boxes, but make compulsory selections for black boxes. Further, you condition that both rules make reference to a selection simply as "something you select" as opposed to a specific noun "Force Organization chart selection" in the priest rule. While I don't fault you for making that assumption, it is still an assumption and no matter how much you want it to be right by default, it simply isn't.

I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

I'm glad you know how to write game rules correctly. GW doesn't. You have interpreted it one way, others have interpreted it another. Awesome thread, great job!

FWIW I'm still with ph34r on the literal rules interpretation, even though in the context of the new GK codex I believe it breaks the game completely.

Much like Deffrollas, even though I believe one interpretation is more correct, I think that you can make a reasonable argument either way on this one and that it should be left to lie.

Until April, when this whole [Mod edit - Another one for the swear filter!] starts over again.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

I'm glad you know how to write game rules correctly. GW doesn't. You have interpreted it one way, others have interpreted it another. Awesome thread, great job!

I don't think that we should assume that GW's rules mean something they didn't write, especially when the purpose of the rule appears to be leaving 2 HQ slots available for other HQ units.

Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

The only things that WE can do as players are:

1. Ignore the direct meaning of the rules, do whatever you think is right.
or
2. Read the rules literally.

When two people might have differing opinions, the only way to settle a rules dispute objectively is to use the objective rules.

ph34r - other hve said it is ambiguous. Others have said it does not support your interpretation.

A high level of inspection has been applied and I dont agree with your interpretation

Your unwillingness to understand this is.... interesting.

ph34r wrote:Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

Now you're getting into truly muddy waters. GW clearly has a 'this is how we intend the game to be played, so play it this way' mentality, even if their rules point in a different direction. We can't simultaneously argue that they're terrible rules writers as well as we should expect perfect clarity from their rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - other hve said it is ambiguous. Others have said it does not support your interpretation.

A high level of inspection has been applied and I dont agree with your interpretation

Your unwillingness to understand this is.... interesting.

So you would say that, you have observed the rules carefully and with a high attention to detail, and you can confidently say that:

When you select a unit that does not "use up" a selection, you do not count as having selected a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

ph34r wrote:Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

Now you're getting into truly muddy waters. GW clearly has a 'this is how we intend the game to be played, so play it this way' mentality, even if their rules point in a different direction. We can't simultaneously argue that they're terrible rules writers as well as we should expect perfect clarity from their rules.

The thing is, the "way it's meant to be played" mindset, which I am all for, would simply reference the BT FAQ as precedent and conclude that Priests may satisfy mandatory slots.

However, the use of an outside FAQ that explains the FOC rules, sparked anger at a less RAW interpretation. So I stopped citing it.

The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

ph34r wrote:
When you select a unit that does not "use up" a selection, you do not count as having selected a unit.

What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

puma713 wrote:What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

I understand how one might not think the "mandatory selection" to need to be "filled" or "satisfied" in some sense, but the fact of the matter is a light grey box enables you to make a choice, while the dark grey box "indicates a compulsory selection". The word tense used in this single sentence indicates that selection is used to mean the act of selecting.

ph34r wrote:

puma713 wrote:What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

I understand how one might not think the "mandatory selection" to need to be "filled" or "satisfied" in some sense, but the fact of the matter is a light grey box enables you to make a choice, while the dark grey box "indicates a compulsory selection". The word tense used in this single sentence indicates that selection is used to mean the act of selecting.

That's where we don't agree. I read that sentence as 'selection' is a noun and 'compulsory' is its adjective.

Magister187 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

The only assumption that I knowingly make is that the sentence "Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection" indicates that a dark-toned box indicates that you are required to perform the act of selecting.

ph34r wrote:

Magister187 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

The only assumption that I knowingly make is that the sentence "Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection" indicates that a dark-toned box indicates that you are required to perform the act of selecting.

How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

puma713 wrote:How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

That merits some thought. I'll come back later.

Right, which leads you to the assumption that the priest "does not use up" a selection means that he still counts as being a selection for the rule. Other people believe that something needs to use up a selection in order to satisfy the rule, making the priest ineligible.

In the risk of creating a straw man, I want to give an example that I hope illustrates the oppositions view of the wording.

Say you were told to "Choose 4 Selections from the following list" but within that list of "Selections" you were given one that stated "This does not use up a selection." Would you feel you could take that AND 4 other selections or would you still feel the mere act of "selecting" it caused it to become a selection, thus rendering the additional clause invalid?

Magister187 wrote:Say you were told to "Choose 4 Selections from the following list" but within that list of "Selections" you were given one that stated "This does not use up a selection." Would you feel you could take that AND 4 other selections or would you still feel the mere act of "selecting" it caused it to become a selection, thus rendering the additional clause invalid?

That's exactly how the FOC HQ limit works. I can take a Priest AND 2 other selections.
At the same time, a Priest is still a selection even though it does not use up a selection, making it able to qualify "Have you made a selection?".

Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

Could you point me towards where the rules say you must "fill boxes" to fulfill requirements?

ph34r wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

Could you point me towards where the rules say you must "fill boxes" to fulfill requirements?

Now we're being a bit petty aren't we? Nos is using the boxes as an illustration of what you have to do with the FOC. I don't think he means that it is written in the BRB that you must "fill boxes". After all, we're given an illustration to make the point in the first place.

I was using this thing called "interpretation" to explain to you, simply, how my interpretation of the rules works.

You do realise that this is *exactly* what you have been doing for the last 5 pages? The only relevant rules have been quoted ad naseum, ALL that is left is interpretation

My interpretation differs from yours, in an utterly valid way. This means that, at best, the rule is ambiguous.

And guess what happens when a rule is ambiguous? Yep, you take the least advantageous position.

Again, AT BEST the rule is ambiguous, which removes your position as being relevant.

Puma: i've been doing the exact same for 5 pages. Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

puma713 wrote:Now we're being a bit petty aren't we? Nos is using the boxes as an illustration of what you have to do with the FOC. I don't think he means that it is written in the BRB that you must "fill boxes". After all, we're given an illustration to make the point in the first place.

Using analogies I can make anything I want seem true. It does not make the rules say what my analogy says. I understand how he thinks "if the box isn't filled it can't fulfill a minimum requirement!"
This would seem logical, right?
However, it's not what the rules say. It has no place in a rules argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was using this thing called "interpretation" to explain to you, simply, how my interpretation of the rules works.

You do realise that this is *exactly* what you have been doing for the last 5 pages? The only relevant rules have been quoted ad naseum, ALL that is left is interpretation

My interpretation differs from yours, in an utterly valid way. This means that, at best, the rule is ambiguous.

And guess what happens when a rule is ambiguous? Yep, you take the least advantageous position.

Again, AT BEST the rule is ambiguous, which removes your position as being relevant.

Puma: i've been doing the exact same for 5 pages. Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

I do not need to make up stupid box analogies to make my point true.
I can make my point with two rules quotes and one sentence.
I do not need to twist the truth or the rules to make my point.

Just because you think that you can ignore the rules, say that everyone is just interpreting the rules in different and valid ways, does not mean that your interpretation is valid or necessarily holds any weight

Well, I'm not going to keep on. But, if it happened in a game against me (if my opponent handed me his list and all he had was a Priest as his HQ), I would ask the TO if it was legal or if he checked the lists. Because, to me, it's not clear. If the TO okayed it, then I wouldn't have any trouble playing against it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

Here is an argument with zero paraphrasing.
Perhaps it is to your liking?

Codex IG: "dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection"
Codex IG: *HQ has one dark-toned box*
Codex IG: *Priest is in the HQ section*
Dictionary, selection: "an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice."
Therefore the act of selecting a Priest means that you have made a selection.
Therefore making a selection satisfies the requirement of a compulsory selection.


Please note that nowhere in the rules does it require that a selection be "used up", nor does it use the words "slot" or "box".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Well, I'm not going to keep on. But, if it happened in a game against me (if my opponent handed me his list and all he had was a Priest as his HQ), I would ask the TO if it was legal or if he checked the lists. Because, to me, it's not clear. If the TO okayed it, then I wouldn't have any trouble playing against it.

Anything a TO says goes. The TO's word is law in his tournament. However this isn't helpful to the general population seeking the most correct interpretation of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

Upon reading the definitions of the word Selection, I can conclude that there are two ways for the FOC quote to be interpreted:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

"Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a required choice"

or

"Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a required thing selected"

Compulsory does in fact not have a contradictory definition that could be used in place of the standard "required; mandatory; obligatory", as our subject is not sports.

In the first interpretation, you are required to choose a unit. This is accomplished every time you include a unit of that type in your army.
In the second, you are told that the dark-toned box indicates a "required thing" be "selected". Again, selection occurs every time you include that unit in your army, and the dark-toned box is in indication of "HQ".

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

And around we go. Priests do not use up any of the FOC selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

Dracos wrote:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

And around we go. Priests do not use up any of the FOC chart selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

I am glad that you have turned your attention to the actual rules quotes.

Now, tell me where it says that "do not use up" erases the fact that the act of putting a Priest in your army is a selection. To save you time, you will not find anywhere that says this. Whether or not a FOC chart selection is "used up" is completely separate from the fact that you have already made a selection.

You select a Priest.
Did you make a selection? Yes.
Did the selection you made "use up" a selection? No.
Did you make a selection? Still yes.

And, as has been pointed out about 1 billion times, I disagree and have given reasons why.

You dont agree

You wont change your mind. I wont change mine.

So your point in continuing is what exactly?

I have *never* seen this ok'd in a tournament, which is about the only time this will matter.