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.

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 selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

And based on the precedent set by the BT FAQ, using the same line of reasoning, they don't need to.

Ph34r, to be honest, can we have some solid proof?
An "Interpretation" of how you see the wording to act does not constitute a solid argument.

It simply makes your point as valid as everyone elses, nothing more.


A simple word change with the same meaning does not mean the rule would act any differently.

Just an example here:

"The space marine sergeant can take:"
"The space marine sergeant may take:"
"The space marine sergeant can be equipped with:"
"The space marine sergeant can have:"

Either way, it has the same meaning to it in terms of the game.

The force org chart has been around some time.
Since then we have seen units that dont count towards it (which cant be used as minimum requirements)

From the logic alone that this has never changed it should be simple enough.

I think its pretty common logic that a model that doesent use up a selection cant fill the mandatory selection.

You are not right, but you arent wrong either.
Your simply stating how you believe it to work, as is everyone else.
Just because they dont agree does not give you permission to throw your toys out of the pram and keep saying they are wrong.

And based on the precedent set by the BT FAQ, using the same line of reasoning, they don't need to.

And its just that.
BT FAQ, not any other army.

Until something solid comes up either way, this wont end. (even if you sit here all night with you are wrong, i am right on the clippy, ready to paste it)

Playing with the wording and trying to change its meaning by your own interpretation wont hold.
With this many people against it there needs to be an end, so its better off if a MOD locks this.


Also, im still unsure why GW dont have main book FAQ's updated every time they get a big question.




Quick note, keyboard keeps doubling letters and missing keys, so i apologise if ive missed anything.

Don - we've covered that GW FAQs cannot constitute precedent - as they are a) answers to a specific question, removing the answer from that context has no support and b) GW themselves cant manage to maintain precedent. To assume you can take a FAQ ruling from one army, NOT in the general BRB FAQ and apply it to an entirely separate army is fallacious given the problems with GW FAQs

If they actually made rulings based on precedence it would mean something, but as Astropaths and Autarchs shows (amongst many, many others!) this is not the case

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

You have never given an argument based on rules. Not once. You have attacked my argument, you have talked about how you are going around in circles, you have called me overly stubborn, you have said that it is all open to interpretation, and you have talked about how you feel boxes should work.

You have NEVER provided a valid rules argument. The fact that you will not restate your argument when confronted time and time again, like I have done oh so many times, only underlines the fact that you have no argument. So PLEASE, just throw some rules quotes in a post, and tell me how they interact to prove your point.

Also for your information, not only is the INATFAQ on my side, but I have never *not* seen this okay'd at tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Ph34r, to be honest, can we have some solid proof?
An "Interpretation" of how you see the wording to act does not constitute a solid argument.
[the rest of a very long post of which I read the entire thing]

I have changed zero wording in my arguments. Please refer to this argument in which I cite Codex, Dictionary, and do nothing else.

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.

Your givens (word changes that have no actual effect, have no actual effect) do not follow to your conclusions (my rules statements are only opinions, common logic should dictate rules conclusions).

Wrong. I quoted the rules to you, bolded the relevant sections and presented my interpretation of what they meant.

I just simply, unlike you, havent bothered restating the same rules over and over and over - because the rules are already in the thread, and I dont have the same love of redundant shouting like you do.

What I have done is attempt to explain my interpretation of the rules. You do the same, but your interpretation is "correct" and anything else is "wrong".

And you wont change your mind on this, you set up a thread to seemingly confirm you are correct (if that was the point, it failed)

And guess what? Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, whcih is the problem. And I've explained what happens when you have an ambiguous ruling - yet you ignore that and carry on. and on. and on.

Edit: oh God STOP with the dictionary quotes. Have you read the tenets lately? It's worth a look see

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. I quoted the rules to you, bolded the relevant sections and presented my interpretation of what they meant.

I just simply, unlike you, havent bothered restating the same rules over and over and over - because the rules are already in the thread, and I dont have the same love of redundant shouting like you do.

What I have done is attempt to explain my interpretation of the rules. You do the same, but your interpretation is "correct" and anything else is "wrong".

And you wont change your mind on this, you set up a thread to seemingly confirm you are correct (if that was the point, it failed)

And guess what? Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, whcih is the problem. And I've explained what happens when you have an ambiguous ruling - yet you ignore that and carry on. and on. and on.

Edit: oh God STOP with the dictionary quotes. Have you read the tenets lately? It's worth a look see

Again, you post. No rules argument. No backup. Your post does nothing to further your cause. You make blanket statements like "your argument is just one of many valid interpretations" with no proof.

Alright, I'll just straight up implore you: PLEASE repost your argument with rules quotes! I can't find it!

Seriously. Go back to the bolded rules quotes. there, that is my rules argument. It hasnt changed in what, 6 pages?

I dont need to keep posting the same rules every time, unlike yourself. What I HAVE done is explain my interpretation, in order to attempt to reach an understanding. It's called discourse in case you missed that part,a nd is slightly more valid than reiterating the saame point over and over and over in the vain hopes that shear repetition will somehow work. A crude, blunt instrument.

You seem to think I have a "cause". I dont. this is an issue that will NEVER come up, with 100% certainty on that, in any event that ever means anything.

And on that - good night. 6 pages of banging my head against a wall isnt great

I didnt say you have changed any actual words, i said that your interpretation of said words has changed the meaning.

Stop saying nos hasnt provided any backup.
You have offered no proof either other than an interpretation of what you think is the right one.

And again, you are neither right nor wrong, as with everyone else.
Just because you believe you are right does not mean others do not have the same view.
They do however choose to present thier own views, rather than reading others and stamping them out when they dont agree with you.

I literally cannot find your rules post with bolded emphasis and all that jazz. I just looked through page 6 and every post of yours is you saying how pointless this whole argument is, except for the post where you posted a box analogy which, as it turns out, isn't rules.

In discourse it is considered polite that, when asked to reiterate your stance, you do so, instead of saying "yeah, it's back there somewhere, if you can't find it I don't know what to tell you".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:I didnt say you have changed any actual words, i said that your interpretation of said words has changed the meaning.

Stop saying nos hasnt provided any backup.
You have offered no proof either other than an interpretation of what you think is the right one.

And again, you are neither right nor wrong, as with everyone else.
Just because you believe you are right does not mean others do not have the same view.
They do however choose to present thier own views, rather than reading others and stamping them out when they dont agree with you.

Ah okay, my interpretation of words has changed their meanings. I thought that the Dictionary quotes of the word definitions would be enough, but apparently not. Could you please specify which words you think I misinterpreted? Preferably with a quote and your emphasis in underline or whatever. Also, I am not being facetious or anything, I honestly want you to point out where you think I misinterpreted.

And to my credit, I am the only person in this thread actually posting relevant rules quotes. You can't so simply say that my argument is just as poorly explained as nos's.

Page 2, 2011/02/24 09:21:02 (sure there used to be post numbers)

Your interpretation is not based on strict rules, either. Which is the entire point - you have to interpret the written words, and the written words are ambiguous, as has been pointed out. Your failure to agree on that part does not render it an invalid point.

Additionally: reread the tenets, note the part about dictionary quotes. It wasnt even a GOOD quote as it did not cite a source - did you even use the OED, the language the book was written in? YOu do understand the differences between colonial and mother tongue?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 2, 2011/02/24 09:21:02 (sure there used to be post numbers)

Your interpretation is not based on strict rules, either. Which is the entire point - you have to interpret the written words, and the written words are ambiguous, as has been pointed out. Your failure to agree on that part does not render it an invalid point.

Additionally: reread the tenets, note the part about dictionary quotes. It wasnt even a GOOD quote as it did not cite a source - did you even use the OED, the language the book was written in? YOu do understand the differences between colonial and mother tongue?

I will be back later with quotes from the OED, though at a cursory glance the English and American English definitions do not differ in any amount of significance. I will also reread your page 2 quote that you are so reluctant to re-quote.

I will post the ways that the key words, based on their different OED definitions, can be interpreted. If the definitions are the same, which I expect, then can we conclude that the "ambiguity" of the words has been cleared?

"Reluctant" to requote?

Damn, you love your spin, dont you? *shakes head* I've posted why I havent requoted the argument about half a dozen times: repetition in a written medium, where you can go back and review, is un-necessary and simply makes posts boring, repetitious and a general waste of space.

Far more useful is to add explanation, in order to reach an udnerstanding. Oh wait, that doesnt count in your world, sorry, I forgot

Edit: You also havent read the tenets, have you? There's a great one in there about dictionary quotes, in case the hints havent been enough to hammer the point home to you.
Night all, have fun with "ph34r"

Edit 2: Oh for crying out loud... no, you are NOT the only person to post relevant rules quotes. Is it seriously that difficult for you to find a post on page 2? Or is this your transparent attempts at spin again?

And to my credit, I am the only person in this thread actually posting relevant rules quotes. You can't so simply say that my argument is just as poorly explained as nos's.

"Im right" "give me credit"
No, simply no.

The force org chart has been in place for a long time now and its use has never changed.
This argument has only come up now due to a FAQ for another army being put up.

So, if a unit/model can fill a choice (while not counting as doing so) wouldnt it be possible to fill up 10 HQ choices (not legal) since they dont count as making such a choice?
No since its not legal.
A unit/model can either fill a selection, or not.
In the event of wording stating it doesent, it stands to reason that a model with such properties cannoy fill the requirement.
This is pretty simple logic that has been around with the chart.

Both me and nos have quoted and made clear out points with the text in previous posts.
If you chose to ignore them, that is not my problem.

To all the people clinging desperately to the fact that this ruling was delivered in a BT FAQ, I point toward the legal systems of every first world country.

There is such a thing as 'precedence'. Look it up - it's relevant. It means that a ruling delivered in one specific case lends weight and establishes a given understanding on the mannner of other, like things, as long as circumstances can be shown to be similar enough.

Thus, the argument "it was in the BT FAQ so it's ONLY for the BTs" is not valid. If you disagree, then you must show how the precedence does not apply in terms of the circumstances being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good example would be the person who found a specific quote in the Chaos Codex that demons can never be used to fill FOC places (I don't remeber the exact quote)

Karl, if it was valid for all, then why not update them and add this in?

It can also be used to show that the EC is an exception to the normal rules due to his nature of being an auto-selection in a BT force.

karlosovic wrote:To all the people clinging desperately to the fact that this ruling was delivered in a BT FAQ, I point toward the legal systems of every former English Colony.

There is such a thing as 'precedence'. Look it up - it's relevant. It means that a ruling delivered in one specific case lends weight and establishes a given understanding on the mannner of other, like things, as long as circumstances can be shown to be similar enough.

Thus, the argument "it was in the BT FAQ so it's ONLY for the BTs" is not valid. If you disagree, then you must show how the precedence does not apply in terms of the circumstances being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good example would be the person who found a specific quote in the Chaos Codex that demons can never be used to fill FOC places (I don't remeber the exact quote)

Fixed for you Mr. Law Scholar. Quoted from Wikipedia and bolded for emphasis

Wikipedia wrote:Materially, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[3] It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law.

Anyway, that aside, it stands mentioning again that while you talk about civil discourse, you have yet to even acknowledge or understand that the rules argument you are making is clearly grounded in interpretation of an ambiguous rule which, however valid, can be interpreted in a very different yet essentially equally valid manner. This is why people are exasperated with you and don't feel the need to re-quote things. You have failed to show ANY desire to have a discussion, but instead constantly pine for people to prove you wrong, which as I have said before isn't possibly with an ambiguous rule, just like it is impossible for you to show your interpretation is the correct one.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:The force org chart has been in place for a long time now and its use has never changed.

Okay, yep.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:This argument has only come up now due to a FAQ for another army being put up.

Nope. This argument came up when Codex: IG was released. Sorry.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So, if a unit/model can fill a choice (while not counting as doing so) wouldnt it be possible to fill up 10 HQ choices (not legal) since they dont count as making such a choice?

If you have 10 HQ selections that do not "use up" HQ selections when taken you can take 10 of them. Sure.

No since its not legal.
A unit/model can either fill a selection, or not.

There is no such thing as "fill" a selection. You are limited to a maximum number of selections as per FOC. Sometimes, a unit does not use up a selection, so you get to keep that 1 to your maximum number of selections.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:In the event of wording stating it doesent, it stands to reason that a model with such properties cannoy fill the requirement.
This is pretty simple logic that has been around with the chart.

Again, there is no such thing as "filling" the chart. You are limited to a maximum number of selections. Some units specify that selecting them does not reduce the remaining number of selections.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Both me and nos have quoted and made clear out points with the text in previous posts.
If you chose to ignore them, that is not my problem.

The last page of nos's posts have literally contained no rules substance. You might then see how I consider his arguments less substantial?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magister187 wrote:Anyway, that aside, it stands mentioning again that while you talk about civil discourse, you have yet to even acknowledge or understand that the rules argument you are making is clearly grounded in interpretation of an ambiguous rule which, however valid, can be interpreted in a very different yet essentially equally valid manner. This is why people are exasperated with you and don't feel the need to re-quote things. You have failed to show ANY desire to have a discussion, but instead constantly pine for people to prove you wrong, which as I have said before isn't possibly with an ambiguous rule, just like it is impossible for you to show your interpretation is the correct one.

Is this quote directed at me? I assume it is.

I love having discussion.

I hate having discussion when people (hi nos) go on for pages about how "oh its so ambiguous" and "but think about my box analogy that is not grounded in rules!".

I want someone to analyze my argument and point our how it is wrong OR construct an argument in a similar style (quoting rules, not changing rulings, not fudging rulings, not saying "and thus the box is not filled!!1!!1!1!!!1!")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Edit 2: Oh for crying out loud... no, you are NOT the only person to post relevant rules quotes. Is it seriously that difficult for you to find a post on page 2? Or is this your transparent attempts at spin again?

Hahahaha, thanks. I literally laughed out loud when I imagined you saying "my arguments have been full of rules! And my last rules quote was 5 pages ago!" with a straight face. Never change


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:wow, you even missed it in your quoting. Again.

Codex IG 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

Bolding mine. Notice it states compulsory selection? Now time for you to reread your other quote, again bolding is mine:

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

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

Alright, here is your rules quote! At last. Thanks for pointing me towards it.

Now, your line of reasoning is:
Priests do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections
Therefore, Priests cannot take up any selections.

Unfortunately for you, you don't have to "take up" or "use up" any selections on your FOC! You simply have to make selections. It doesn't matter how used or not used up the FOC selection was by your selecting the HQ unit. As long as you made the selection, you qualify, as stated by:

Codex IG 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

Compulsory selection, by definition of the words, means "The action of selecting or choosing out, which is required," or "A particular choice, which is required."

Also, according to OED:

OED wrote:Selection: The action of selecting or choosing out; also the fact of being selected or chosen.

OED wrote:Selection: A particular choice; choice of a particular individual or individuals; concr. the (†person or) thing selected

I am glad to say that the OED definitions align with the American English definitions perfectly.

Alright. I think this thread has reached the conclusion of its useful life.