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.

Voharius wrote:It does replace the 6+, if another ward save applies. That's when you use the improved save instead.

I've been reading these forums for a while, but never felt like I had much to add until I saw this thread. This is not "Attempting to interpret the rules so as to maximize benefit." I just saw one guy giving an opinion contrary to everything else I've seen and heard regarding the mark, and felt like I should say something. You are the ONLY person who seems to think this. You are the only one in this thread. I've been checking other forums and haven't seen a single post that agrees with your stance on it.

You were putting a lot of emphasis on the word "instead" but now you're saying that the word is "superfluous" and "meaningless." You even went both ways in one post. How do I debate that? You're saying RAI is meaningless, and now you're saying RAW is as well. What's left? Fluff?

This isn't about powergaming or personal advantage. I'm just trying to stop misinformation.

Reference from COTEC, the only place where this question was spelled out:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/cotec/index.php?showtopic=3793

Every other post I found just assumed the 6+ was always there. Nobody but you thought it would be any other way.

If you had read the thread closely you'd see that at least two people agree that the 6+ does not apply. You also misunderstood what he was saying about the word instead. He is saying that IF the rule was meant to be itnerpreted the way youa re saying they would not have added the word instead. If that was the case the word instead is misleading and superfluous. However if you are reading the rule as writtin, then the wrod instead is the opposite of superflous. It's the lynchpin of the rule.

An interpretation doesn't have to be popular to be correct. I live in America where popular and correct are typically wildly divergent concepts. However the rule as written, is pretty clear. It's pretty clear, also, that people WANT that 6+ in this situation. There's no rule to support it, but it would certainly fly in a firendly game, or if someone went with their initial instinct when glancing at the rule rather than actually reading it and parsing the word.s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voharius wrote:You are clearly intending to be insulting in your posts. You're also saying that anyone who disagrees with you is "shady" and exhibiting "poor sportsmanship."

As for the "additional clarification," isn't that what this forum is all about?

It says if you don't have a ward save you have a 6+. If you have something else you improve that. If you're in melee with a ranged ward save, you don't have a ward save. In such a case, the 6+ applies. That's not a stretch, that's pretty much how it's written already.

If you really want to go by the rule as written, your ward save INCREASES. It doesn't improve. So that 5+ would become a 6+.

The only thing I've seen so far that is "clearly" insulting is you projecting your feelings onto my intentions. I have not said anything inteded to be insulting. I have never said "you are this" or "you ar that." You've personalized and internalized my examples and my feelings about certain types of behavior. This is not my problem. Don't try to tell me what my intentions were. I'm the only one who knows my intentions- in the same way that you are the only one who can choose to be insulted or not. I'm surprised you chose to be insulted by this- since at no point were there personally directed attacks on your individual qualaties- but it's not up to me what you want to get offended by.

I'm also not saying people are shady or poor sports for disagreeing, I AM saying it's poor sportsmanship and shady to refuse to look at what the rule ACUTALLY SAYS rather than trying to construe it to say what you want to happen. Every rule as written has indicated the same thing. These knights have an existing ward save. MoT improves it. (By the way to increase a ward save you subtract from the dice roll- don't get caught up on increase being only an addition. How would you increase a debt? You'd get rid of money...) Whether those knights can use the ward all the time is 100% completely irrelevant, the point is they have it, and do not qualify for the flat 6+ that models WITH NO WARD SAVE are eligible for. At any time if you ask "do those models HAVE a ward save" the answer is yes. Sometimes you could ask "do those models GET TO ROLL their ward save?" you might get a no back. Those are the breaks.

Okay, I'm assuming that faintpremonition=Mannahnin based on the auto-appended post. You say 2 other people agree with you in this thread? I see one that was on the fence, none that agree.

The rest of your post was just rambling and off point. You didn't say anything there rules-wise that would support your point. Instead you bring in America, debt payoff, etc.

And as for the offensive nature of your previous posts--Why else would you bring bad sportsmanship and general shadiness up if not to imply that was what you thought of my stance on the question? If you can't see how the two are related, then...well, I guess there's really no point trying to debate rules of any kind with you.

Voharius wrote:It does replace the 6+, if another ward save applies. That's when you use the improved save instead. .

Except that, if that’s the way it works, the word “instead” is totally unnecessary. Because the main rulebook states that you always just use the one best ward save which is currently applicable. Again, if it were intended to work the way you’re claiming, they would have just written ‘‘It bestows a 6+ ward save on the bearer. If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is increased by 1.’

Voharius wrote:You are the ONLY person who seems to think this. You are the only one in this thread. I've been checking other forums and haven't seen a single post that agrees with your stance on it.

Appeal to popularity. Your statement is also literally false, since faintpremonition and I are different people.

Voharius wrote:You were putting a lot of emphasis on the word "instead" but now you're saying that the word is "superfluous" and "meaningless." You even went both ways in one post. How do I debate that?

Here you simply are not using good reading comprehension. I’m saying that under YOUR interpretation of the rule, the word “instead” as used in the actual written rules for the MoT, would be meaningless and superfluous. Simply extraneous verbiage, because of what it tells on page 30 of the main rulebook- “If a model has two ward saves for any reason, use the better ward save."

If your interpretation was correct, they could/would have just left word “instead” out of the rules for the MoT. My interpretation rests on the concept that the word “instead” is there for a reason. To tell us that the model benefits from one or the other of the two listed options. A 6+ ward, or a 1pt improvement on any other ward it has.

Well, the forums seem to think you're one and the same since it joined your posts.

Look, nobody agrees with you. And frankly, you're just getting more hostile and less coherent with each post. I'm done trying to have some kind of civilized discussion of rules.

Back to looking at pretty pictures in the modelling section and rules queries on other sites.

Voharius, your inability to read or distinguish between two people's posts is your own issue.

Faintpremonition, in a second post shortly following another, quoted you quoting me. The software auto-appends his second post onto his first. This appears to be where your confusion regarding auto appends stems from. But the quotes are still clearly labeled and sub-sectioned.

If you'd rather bow out of the discussion than engage my argument, that's always an option. Here's my third apology for anything that offended you in my posts.

Just in case there's somehow still confusion here is a post not automatically appending to Mannahnin, what with me and him not being the same person.

Also since we agree with each other that is in fact two people who agree. The one on the fence, I suppose, makes 2 and a half.

And Voharius, you reading comprehension really is poor- it makes having this discussion extremely difficult. I haven't needed to cite additional rules, because all the cited rules that have been already brought into the discussion have supported my agrument as written. I quote them and explain why in several posts.

The posts are not incoherent, you are just not understanding. Again, not my problem. The "point" was made that "if you wanted to follow the rule as written INCREASING the ward save would make a +4 a +5". I demonstrated how that was wrong and a totally silly use of language.

Since a more effective ward save uses a lower number to increase it you subtract from it's + value. IN THE SAME WAY that to icnrease a debt you would get rid of money. It had nothing to do with economics, it had to do with proper use of language. The point is- and clearly someone thought this was a point of contention that "increase" =/= counting.

Okay, so about the appended post--The first post talks about Manny in the 3rd person, second one is 1st person. That's not a quote either, as it's not anywhere previous in the thread. Why did it append those posts, since they were from two different people? That's how other forums handle double-posts from the same IP address. What does it mean on Dakka?

I'm not even going back to the original question. We're at a point where no real discourse is even possible.

Voharius wrote:And as for the offensive nature of your previous posts--Why else would you bring bad sportsmanship and general shadiness up if not to imply that was what you thought of my stance on the question? If you can't see how the two are related, then...well, I guess there's really no point trying to debate rules of any kind with you.

I can see how they are related but you seem unable to see that they are not the same thing. Again here is a simple comparison so you can see my point. If I think you are "being shady" or "your actions are bad sportsmanship" that is =/= YOU PERSONALLY being shady or a bad sport. I don't know enough about you to level that accustions.

IN THE SAME WAY:

If I see my 21 year old brother driving his riding lawnmower too fast, and he flips it, I would probably say he was "being really childish". I am NOT SAYING he is a child. That is obviously untrue. If this was a consistant behaviour that I observed over a lengthy period of time, then maybe I would reconsider my evalutaion of him and perhaps accuse him of BEING a child, rather than simply behaving like a child, or being childish for a short period.

This is not a hard concept. I have leveled no personal insults at you. I have stated that the wya you were trying to parse the rule in a shady, unsportsmanlike manner. I stand by that. It's not an insult. You can choose to be insulted, sure, but it's not an insult, just my evaluation of some behavior I've noticed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voharius wrote:Okay, so about the appended post--The first post talks about Manny in the 3rd person, second one is 1st person. That's not a quote either, as it's not anywhere previous in the thread. Why did it append those posts, since they were from two different people? That's how other forums handle double-posts from the same IP address. What does it mean on Dakka?

I'm not even going back to the original question. We're at a point where no real discourse is even possible.

What quote from him was appended to me? That never happened...

faintpremonition wrote:
This is not a hard concept. I have leveled no personal insults at you. I have stated that the wya you were trying to parse the rule in a shady, unsportsmanlike manner. I stand by that. It's not an insult. You can choose to be insulted, sure, but it's not an insult, just my evaluation of some behavior I've noticed.

I'm not saying you're a bottom-feeding, malformed, mentally-deficient scumwad. I'm just saying you were behaving in a similar fashion. Hey, not an insult right?

If I actually have to explain why you're wrong on that, then I really overestimated the quality of these forums when I decided to browse the YMDC section. I'm just sticking to the P&M section from now on.

Voharius wrote:

faintpremonition wrote:
This is not a hard concept. I have leveled no personal insults at you. I have stated that the wya you were trying to parse the rule in a shady, unsportsmanlike manner. I stand by that. It's not an insult. You can choose to be insulted, sure, but it's not an insult, just my evaluation of some behavior I've noticed.

I'm not saying you're a bottom-feeding, malformed, mentally-deficient scumwad. I'm just saying you were behaving in a similar fashion. Hey, not an insult right?

If I actually have to explain why you're wrong on that, then I really overestimated the quality of these forums when I decided to browse the YMDC section. I'm just sticking to the P&M section from now on.

Well sure if I was bottom feeding, displaying deformities and so forth. If I'm not then you're lying about my actions to make me look bad. Since I almost never bototm feed, and am free of deformities the likelyhood of you pointing this out in good faith are slim. I'd probably assume you were trying to make a ridiculously extreme accusation in hopes to point out the "folly" of my point. But your silly, and extreme example doens't discount what I'm saying.

Playing semantics isn't going to help here. I'm not some random stupid guy who can't see that what you've jsut said here is not the same thing as what I was saying, it is only passingly similar. You are talking about accusing me of doing something I am not. I'm talking about accusing you of doing somehting you are doing.

Stick to common sense, rational arguments and examples so we can have a level field of communication. Apply that same behavior to ruels interpretations. Insted of coming up with extreme examples, look at the RAW and evaluate what those words are telling you.

Reread the thread. I started with rational arguments and cited plenty of examples to back up my position. Unfortunately that was all just met with garbage. Proving every cliche about internet arguing correct, I then devolved to match you. We might as well go ahead and get this thread locked, because nothing useful is going to come of it now.

Voharius wrote:Okay, so about the appended post--The first post talks about Manny in the 3rd person, second one is 1st person. That's not a quote either, as it's not anywhere previous in the thread. Why did it append those posts, since they were from two different people? That's how other forums handle double-posts from the same IP address. What does it mean on Dakka?

What are you talking about? Could you quote or describe where I can observe the phenomenon that's got you confused?

FP wrote a post. Then wrote a second post which started with a quoted section. HIS two posts (one of which included a quote of you, quoting me) were appended to one another.

This one.

faintpremonition wrote:

Voharius wrote:It does replace the 6+, if another ward save applies. That's when you use the improved save instead.

I've been reading these forums for a while, but never felt like I had much to add until I saw this thread. This is not "Attempting to interpret the rules so as to maximize benefit." I just saw one guy giving an opinion contrary to everything else I've seen and heard regarding the mark, and felt like I should say something. You are the ONLY person who seems to think this. You are the only one in this thread. I've been checking other forums and haven't seen a single post that agrees with your stance on it.

You were putting a lot of emphasis on the word "instead" but now you're saying that the word is "superfluous" and "meaningless." You even went both ways in one post. How do I debate that? You're saying RAI is meaningless, and now you're saying RAW is as well. What's left? Fluff?

This isn't about powergaming or personal advantage. I'm just trying to stop misinformation.

Reference from COTEC, the only place where this question was spelled out:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/cotec/index.php?showtopic=3793

Every other post I found just assumed the 6+ was always there. Nobody but you thought it would be any other way.

If you had read the thread closely you'd see that at least two people agree that the 6+ does not apply. You also misunderstood what he was saying about the word instead. He is saying that IF the rule was meant to be itnerpreted the way youa re saying they would not have added the word instead. If that was the case the word instead is misleading and superfluous. However if you are reading the rule as writtin, then the wrod instead is the opposite of superflous. It's the lynchpin of the rule.

An interpretation doesn't have to be popular to be correct. I live in America where popular and correct are typically wildly divergent concepts. However the rule as written, is pretty clear. It's pretty clear, also, that people WANT that 6+ in this situation. There's no rule to support it, but it would certainly fly in a firendly game, or if someone went with their initial instinct when glancing at the rule rather than actually reading it and parsing the word.s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voharius wrote:You are clearly intending to be insulting in your posts. You're also saying that anyone who disagrees with you is "shady" and exhibiting "poor sportsmanship."

As for the "additional clarification," isn't that what this forum is all about?

It says if you don't have a ward save you have a 6+. If you have something else you improve that. If you're in melee with a ranged ward save, you don't have a ward save. In such a case, the 6+ applies. That's not a stretch, that's pretty much how it's written already.

If you really want to go by the rule as written, your ward save INCREASES. It doesn't improve. So that 5+ would become a 6+.

The only thing I've seen so far that is "clearly" insulting is you projecting your feelings onto my intentions. I have not said anything inteded to be insulting. I have never said "you are this" or "you ar that." You've personalized and internalized my examples and my feelings about certain types of behavior. This is not my problem. Don't try to tell me what my intentions were. I'm the only one who knows my intentions- in the same way that you are the only one who can choose to be insulted or not. I'm surprised you chose to be insulted by this- since at no point were there personally directed attacks on your individual qualaties- but it's not up to me what you want to get offended by.

I'm also not saying people are shady or poor sports for disagreeing, I AM saying it's poor sportsmanship and shady to refuse to look at what the rule ACUTALLY SAYS rather than trying to construe it to say what you want to happen. Every rule as written has indicated the same thing. These knights have an existing ward save. MoT improves it. (By the way to increase a ward save you subtract from the dice roll- don't get caught up on increase being only an addition. How would you increase a debt? You'd get rid of money...) Whether those knights can use the ward all the time is 100% completely irrelevant, the point is they have it, and do not qualify for the flat 6+ that models WITH NO WARD SAVE are eligible for. At any time if you ask "do those models HAVE a ward save" the answer is yes. Sometimes you could ask "do those models GET TO ROLL their ward save?" you might get a no back. Those are the breaks.

Voharius wrote:Reread the thread. I started with rational arguments and cited plenty of examples to back up my position. Unfortunately that was all just met with garbage. Proving every cliche about internet arguing correct, I then devolved to match you. We might as well go ahead and get this thread locked, because nothing useful is going to come of it now.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in the debate, despite the heat. I think both you and FP, and probably myself, have escalated it to a bit more personal level than is necessary.

I will now concede that there is a certain degree of ambiguity here.

If you’re still willing to give it a go, please review my posts regarding the importance or superfluity of the word “instead”. I maintain that my interpretation is the only once that makes sense in light of that word’s inclusion in the sentence. If your interpretation was the intended meaning, GW would/could have left that word out entirely, given what p 30 of the rulebook tells us.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voharius wrote:This one.

There's nothing of mine in there. You wrote a reply to me, and FP replied to and quoted your response to me.

I play at a few shops in the Dallas area, and with/against many chaos players. If I tried telling one of 'em they couldn't get their 6+ in melee because they had a save vs ranged I'd get thrown out of the store for being an idiot. Of course they still have the 6+. That's just the obvious answer. All of you people rules lawyering are the ones that pick apart every word, GW doesn't put that much thought into their phrasing.

I mean Mannahnin's in here saying in one post that 'instead' is the most super important word since the big bang, then in another saying that it's superfluous. What?

When you start tearing it into tiny little pieces you lose sight of the intent. The intent here is the freakin protection of a chaos god. It's supposed to be protection against everything.

And that double post at the top of the page looks like the same dude to me too. Goes from he to I after the break talking about the same thing.

To paraphrase Queek (and a little less harshly): It's possible (likely?) that GW's intent was that you always get the 6+, regardless of conditional saves. Their inability to remove the word 'instead' may not be a result of taking the 6+ away from those with conditional saves but rather a failure to proofread or the fact that they don't write their rules with nearly as much scrutiny as we put into reading them.

Edited for spelling...