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.

"...a character with this special rule may choose you repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with our embarked upon." -Codex Space Marines, Blessing of the Omnissiah

What part of the rule specifically gives you permission?

If it said "move the model into base contact", then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't.

Can you quote the part of BoO that gives permission to be in base contact?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Can you quote the part of BoO that gives permission to be in base contact?

I suspect he might be "paraphrasing" again.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Can you quote the part of BoO that gives permission to be in base contact?

I suspect he might be "paraphrasing" again.

Well done now I have coffee all over my screen

 Cheexsta wrote:
"...a character with this special rule may choose you repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon." -Codex Space Marines, Blessing of the Omnissiah

What part of the rule specifically gives you permission?

If it said "move the model into base contact", then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't.

I marked it for you. It was hard to see, being right there in the middle of your quote.

Actually, this really does open my eyes to why so many people argue about the rules when the answers are right there in from of their eyes in clear print. We seem to have an "Oblivious" side of every argument that literally cannot see the rules written right in front of them, versus the "Aware" side that just can't help but see the blantantly obvious rules sitting right there exactly where they should be. It reminds me of why a can of soup has "how to prepare" instructions written on its side:

About third of people don't need it because preparing soup is obvious, a third read it everytime so they do it correctly each time, and a third never read it, burn the soup everytime, and bitch about how terrible the product is.

The "Oblivious" crowd in this game make me wonder if they are capable of not F'ing up a can of soup.

SJ

The highlighted section gives no permission to do anything. Is English your first language?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By this logic because it mentions being in base contact that is permission to be in base contact whenever you want, does that mean my techmarine can be placed in base contact with any friendly vehicle anywhere on the battlefield whenever he wants?

Can units equipped with melee weapons just magically be in base contact and attack any unit on the board as melee weapons also mention they have an effect when engaged in combat?

Or do you know all the normal rules apply and only those specifically over ridden are ignored?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
"...a character with this special rule may choose you repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon." -Codex Space Marines, Blessing of the Omnissiah

What part of the rule specifically gives you permission?

If it said "move the model into base contact", then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't.

I marked it for you. It was hard to see, being right there in the middle of your quote.

Actually, this really does open my eyes to why do many people argue about the rules when the answers are right there in from of their eyes in clear type. We seem to have an "Oblivious" side of every argument that literally cannot see the rules written right in front of them, versus the "Aware" side that just can't help but see the blantantly obvious rules sitting right there exactly where they should be. It reminds me of why a can of soup has "how to prepare" instructions written on its side:

About third of people don't need it because preparing soup is obvious, a third read it everytime so they do it correctly each time, and a third never read it, burn the soup everytime, and bitch about how terrible the product is.

The "Oblivious" crowd in this game make me wonder if they are capable of not F'ing up a can of soup.

SJ

So let's say, In the process of f'ing up my can of soup, it causes a strength D hit on the unit's Sergeant. Can I LoS the wounds caused from the D table?
.
..
...
Seriously though, you guys are hilarious. These spirited rules debates are great.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The highlighted section gives no permission to do anything. Is English your first language?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By this logic because it mentions being in base contact that is permission to be in base contact whenever you want, does that mean my techmarine can be placed in base contact with any friendly vehicle anywhere on the battlefield whenever he wants?

Can units equipped with melee weapons just magically be in base contact and attack any unit on the board as melee weapons also mention they have an effect when engaged in combat?

Or do you know all the normal rules apply and only those specifically over ridden are ignored?

If the restriction exists that denies a model's ability to be in base to base with another friendly if both mods are not in the same unit, a phrase stating that the first model can be in base to base with the second model per a specific rule is in fact permission to bypass the first restriction. And that is basic English. Maybe not London English, or American Southern English, yet still basic English taught in primary school grades 1-12.

Good luck with that soup!

SJ

I believe this is a case of a codex rule overriding a basic rule. The blessing wording is obviously granting the tech marine the ability to be in base contact with friendly vehicals when using his blessing despite being an IC - otherwise, how would he use his blessing? It's a case of understanding how GW writes their rules.

Drop pods must be amazing in your meta. I mean assault vehicle allows you to assault and therefore the DS and arriving from reserves restrictions don't apply correct?

Have you read the IC rule quoted or are you using your "paraphrased" version? I mean someone commenting on basic comprehension that does not even know what paraphrasing is, does that not just sound a little hypocritical to you?

The IC rule prevents you finishing your movement phase within 2". It doesn't prevent you from being in base contact in the shooting phase. So you could for example move into BrB during either the Psychic or Shooting phases. The BoO rule does not give permission to be in base contact. It only gives you an option to do something if you are. Why does that override the IC rule but not other movement rules?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
"...a character with this special rule may choose you repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon." -Codex Space Marines, Blessing of the Omnissiah

What part of the rule specifically gives you permission?

If it said "move the model into base contact", then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't.

I marked it for you. It was hard to see, being right there in the middle of your quote.

Actually, this really does open my eyes to why so many people argue about the rules when the answers are right there in from of their eyes in clear print. We seem to have an "Oblivious" side of every argument that literally cannot see the rules written right in front of them, versus the "Aware" side that just can't help but see the blantantly obvious rules sitting right there exactly where they should be. It reminds me of why a can of soup has "how to prepare" instructions written on its side:

About third of people don't need it because preparing soup is obvious, a third read it everytime so they do it correctly each time, and a third never read it, burn the soup everytime, and bitch about how terrible the product is.

The "Oblivious" crowd in this game make me wonder if they are capable of not F'ing up a can of soup.

SJ

The part you underlined is not a permission. If he is not in in base contact, then the above rule does not allow him there.

"he is in base contact with" is a requirement that needs to be met before the whole rule can be followed.


So, dear jeffersonian, explain to me the permissions found in these rules: (Copied exactly as they are from the Rulebook, in case a complaint is made)

Acute Senses
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit arrives on a random table edge

If i have "Acute senses", i have permission to "arrives on a random table edge"?

Supersonic
A Supersonic vehicle that moves Flat Out must move at least 18" and can move up to 36".

If i have "Supersonic", do i have permission to move Flat Out?
So if models disembark from a Flyer with the "supersonic" rule, the above permission means i can still Flat Out? Same if I use vector dancer?

Torrent
A weapon with this special rule is treated like any other Template weapon, but when firing it in the Shooting phase,

If i have "Torrent", do i have permission to fire the weapon in the Shooting phase?
I mean, if i fire Snap shots, Templates cannot fire, but:
'If the restriction exists that denies a model's ability to fire a Template, a phrase stating that you can fire it in the shooting phase per a specific rule is in fact permission to bypass the first restriction.And that is basic English. Maybe not London English, or American Southern English, yet still basic English taught in primary school grades 1-12. '

Right?

My Torrent weapons can fire Snap shots! I am thrilled !

Quote full rules in a new thread, and we'll either burn soup or not. Making statements out of context is just an attempt at false equivalency, or intentionally trying to derail the thread.

SJ

Edit:
Never mind, I've got a User on my ignore list. Purposefully inflaming threads that did not even relate to these posts.

 BlackTalos wrote:
You mean giving RaW examples on how to differentiate a "permission" and a "prerequisite" in a simple sentence?

Or do you feel like correcting that comment now that i've provided multiple examples of how 'Words' actually work?

I'm suggesting that if you wish to discuss the subject of the thread, do so. However, if you wish to discuss grammar and how to read 40k rules, a new thread would be a better option. Either way, citing examples out of context in order to "prove" a false equivalency is not only bad form in a debate, it goes against the forum tenets.

SJ

Seriously? Right the IC rule prevents you finishing your movement phase within 2". It doesn't prevent you from being in base contact in the shooting phase. So you could for example move into BrB during either the Psychic or Shooting phases. The BoO rule does not give permission to be in base contact. It only gives you an option to do something if you are. Why does that override the IC rule but not other movement rules?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
You mean giving RaW examples on how to differentiate a "permission" and a "prerequisite" in a simple sentence?

Or do you feel like correcting that comment now that i've provided multiple examples of how 'Words' actually work?

I'm suggesting that if you wish to discuss the subject of the thread, do so. However, if you wish to discuss grammar and how to read 40k rules, a new thread would be a better option. Either way, citing examples out of context in order to "prove" a false equivalency is not only bad form in a debate, it goes against the forum tenets.

SJ

It actually wasn't a false equivalency.

In any case, being in base to base contact with a Vehicle is a requirement in the BoO rules wording and not a permission.

"...a character with this special rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon."

So, I have a character. If that character is embarked upon a vehicle, he may choose to repair that vehicle. Can a character be embarked upon a vehicle? Sure. The rules allow for this.

So, I have a character. If that character is in base contact with a friendly vehicle, he may choose to repair that vehicle. Can a character be in base contact with a friendly vehicle? Generally not. The rules generally do not allow a unit containing said model or an IC with the BoO rule to end the movement phase within 2" of a unit or vehicle he has no intention of joining. The BoO rule does NOT grant permission to make base contact. It simply says that you can do something IF you've made base contact. You'd have to make base contact in some other fashion.

Are there ways to make base contact with a friendly vehicle? Possibly. Using your standard move to move into base contact isn't one of them.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that BoO should ACTUALLY be played this way, but AS WRITTEN, it practically only allows for the repair of embarked transports as ICs/Units with the rule can never voluntarily move into base contact with a friendly vehicle.

In other words... the rule is broken. It grants a permission to do something (repair a vehicle) contingent upon a requirement that will typically never happen (be in base contact with a friendly vehicle. The rule needs to be FAQ'd or Errata'd. Realistically, saying the character with the BoO rule can choose to repair any vehicle he's embarked on OR any friendly vehicle within 3" would fix everything and make the rule work as probably intended.

This is actually how we play the rule... no base contact required, just be within 3".

it is legally possible, as some one else pointed out, to get them into base contact in another phase. For example if the IC moves to 2" from the vehicle in the movement phase, then in the shooting phase the vehicle moves flat out and into base contact with the IC you are good.

Well, good luck with the thread. Enjoy your soup.

SJ

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
You mean giving RaW examples on how to differentiate a "permission" and a "prerequisite" in a simple sentence?

Or do you feel like correcting that comment now that i've provided multiple examples of how 'Words' actually work?

I'm suggesting that if you wish to discuss the subject of the thread, do so. However, if you wish to discuss grammar and how to read 40k rules, a new thread would be a better option. Either way, citing examples out of context in order to "prove" a false equivalency is not only bad form in a debate, it goes against the forum tenets.

SJ

It actually wasn't a false equivalency.

In any case, being in base to base contact with a Vehicle is a requirement in the BoO rules wording and not a permission.

"...a character with this special rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon."

So, I have a character. If that character is embarked upon a vehicle, he may choose to repair that vehicle. Can a character be embarked upon a vehicle? Sure. The rules allow for this.

So, I have a character. If that character is in base contact with a friendly vehicle, he may choose to repair that vehicle. Can a character be in base contact with a friendly vehicle? Generally not. The rules generally do not allow a unit containing said model or an IC with the BoO rule to end the movement phase within 2" of a unit or vehicle he has no intention of joining. The BoO rule does NOT grant permission to make base contact. It simply says that you can do something IF you've made base contact. You'd have to make base contact in some other fashion.

Are there ways to make base contact with a friendly vehicle? Possibly. Using your standard move to move into base contact isn't one of them.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that BoO should ACTUALLY be played this way, but AS WRITTEN, it practically only allows for the repair of embarked transports as ICs/Units with the rule can never voluntarily move into base contact with a friendly vehicle.

In other words... the rule is broken. It grants a permission to do something (repair a vehicle) contingent upon a requirement that will typically never happen (be in base contact with a friendly vehicle. The rule needs to be FAQ'd or Errata'd. Realistically, saying the character with the BoO rule can choose to repair any vehicle he's embarked on OR any friendly vehicle within 3" would fix everything and make the rule work as probably intended.

This is actually how we play the rule... no base contact required, just be within 3".

I agree the rule is broken. I'd say it's pretty obvious that it's broken. The intent is pretty clear - they want the TM to be in base contact per the BoO rule. The BrB even states it's okay for brb basic rules to conflict with codex rules and that codex always takes precedence. RAW stop working when you run into contradictions. RAI in the only way to settle most of these debates.

 DJGietzen wrote:
it is legally possible, as some one else pointed out, to get them into base contact in another phase. For example if the IC moves to 2" from the vehicle in the movement phase, then in the shooting phase the vehicle moves flat out and into base contact with the IC you are good.

Yup. That's why I said it's generally not allowed. There are ways of doing it, but simply moving into b2b isn't one of those ways.

So, I think we've covered all of the usual ground there.

This is another of those rules that has been broken for several editions now, but that most people ignore the RAW on and play as was clearly intended.

If in doubt, talk to your opponent.