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.

I was making acastellans list, when I realized that Sisters can't take drop pods from the Fa.

So much for cheaper drop melta squads.

In all fairness, Sisters respond to incursions on the worlds they already garrison, which means they are already there. Astartes most of the time are just arriving, hince Drop Pods.

SJ

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Only for specified rules which were never initially addressed, unlike this example where you are told it has the same Battlefield Role and Faction as the unit it is purchased for.

You are missing my point then. Where does it state they lose their old one?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

It doesn't need to, because it tells you when taken as a Dedicated Transport its Faction and Battlefield Role are set.

It does not. It states as counting as having the same Battlefield Role and Faction as the unit they were bought for. Where does it state it replaces it or loses the old one when the new one is brought in to play?

As we have seen in the (attrotious) FAQ, it is possible for multiple Roles and Factions to exist in one unit, why not here as well?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
That's shifting the goalposts. The statement has no further qualifier and can be taken at face value. Taken at face value a statement claiming the same eye colour is abundantly clear and obvious in its meaning, much like at face value it's abundantly clear a Dedicated Transport is only the Battlefield Role and Faction of its purchased-for unit.

You were shifting the goal posts. You are using a statement in real life which carries assumptions and applying it to an abstract game situation.

Where are we told to make this same assumption? Where does it state a model or unit may only have one Role or Faction?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Only for specified rules which were never initially addressed, unlike this example where you are told it has the same Battlefield Role and Faction as the unit it is purchased for.

As we have seen in the FAQ, it is possible for multiple Roles and Factions to exist in one unit, why not here as well?

This is my opinion as well (as argued in different threads), but I'll warn you it is a minority position here on Dakka.

 Charistoph wrote:
You are missing my point then. Where does it state they lose their old one?

Why does it need to? We have a plain statement what their Faction counts as.

It does not. It states as counting as having the same Battlefield Role and Faction as the unit they were bought for. Where does it state it replaces it or loses the old one when the new one is brought in to play?

As we have seen in the (attrotious) FAQ, it is possible for multiple Roles and Factions to exist in one unit, why not here as well?

Because but for your rules paranoia there's no need to assume that might be the case.

You were shifting the goal posts. You are using a statement in real life which carries assumptions and applying it to an abstract game situation.

Where are we told to make this same assumption? Where does it state a model or unit may only have one Role or Faction?

No, I wasn't. I provided a simple, real life analogy where a statement taken at its face value has a simple and obvious meaning.

By trying to further qualify the statement in the absence of anything in the rule to suggest you should, you are Shifting the goalposts.

The rulebook provides no hint of further qualifying the counts as statement so there is no need for us to do so.

In short if we are told it counts as X for all rules purposes we cannot count it as Y, or also Y, for some rules purposes, unless told to do so. Which we are not.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
You are missing my point then. Where does it state they lose their old one?

Why does it need to? We have a plain statement what their Faction counts as.

As I have said, in order for the previous one not to count. As the FAQ points out, just saying as it counts as something else does not completely replace or allow one to ignore what it starts with.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

It does not. It states as counting as having the same Battlefield Role and Faction as the unit they were bought for. Where does it state it replaces it or loses the old one when the new one is brought in to play?

As we have seen, "for all rules purposes" does not actually mean "for ALL rules purposes".

As we have seen in the (attrotious) FAQ, it is possible for multiple Roles and Factions to exist in one unit, why not here as well?

Because but for your rules paranoia there's no need to assume that might be the case.

Now calling it paranoia is rather rude. This is not about paranoia, but rather the fact that certain things we have taken for granted simply are not actually stated to happen. "For all rules purposes" does not mean "for ALL rules purposes" any more. We are not told to replace it, but just apply it.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

You were shifting the goal posts. You are using a statement in real life which carries assumptions and applying it to an abstract game situation.

Where are we told to make this same assumption? Where does it state a model or unit may only have one Role or Faction?

No, I wasn't. I provided a simple, real life analogy where a statement taken at its face value has a simple and obvious meaning.

By trying to further qualify the statement in the absence of anything in the rule to suggest you should, you are Shifting the goalposts.

The rulebook provides no hint of further qualifying the counts as statement so there is no need for us to do so.

In short if we are told it counts as X for all rules purposes we cannot count it as Y, or also Y, for some rules purposes, unless told to do so. Which we are not.

I did not bring up the example, you did. I did not change the goalposts, I placed them appropriately. You tried to change the goalposts with this example, which again, is about making assumptions rather than ignoring the whole context of the statement.

Does someone with their eyes each having different color have one of them? You betcha, they do. Those are the goalposts that I have set by stating, it counts as having these new Roles/Factions, but where does it state it stops having the old ones? Having one blue eye and one hazel eye, still means you have the blue eye color. Now, if you are talking about genetic coding, that's a different story and one you did not reference in the original question, just your answer.

 Charistoph wrote:
As I have said, in order for the previous one not to count. As the FAQ points out, just saying as it counts as something else does not completely replace or allow one to ignore what it starts with.

Unnecessary. If we are told to count it as X we should necessarily not count it as something else.

Now calling it paranoia is rather rude. This is not about paranoia, but rather the fact that certain things we have taken for granted simply are not actually stated to happen. "For all rules purposes" does not mean "for ALL rules purposes" any more. We are not told to replace it, but just apply it.

For all rules purposes has ALWAYS meant "unless otherwise stated". This is you railing against an FAQ you disagree with and throwing up possibilities the rules don't actually make mention of.

I did not bring up the example, you did. I did not change the goalposts, I placed them appropriately. You tried to change the goalposts with this example, which again, is about making assumptions rather than ignoring the whole context of the statement.

The example has nothing to do with shifting the goalposts. I gave an example of a plain statement with a clear meaning when not further qualified. Saying, "I have the same eye colour as you" is not the same as, "I have the same eye colour as you, but only in one eye."

Trying to further qualify the example it the rule is shifting the goalposts.

Does someone with their eyes each having different color have one of them? You betcha, they do. Those are the goalposts that I have set by stating, it counts as having these new Roles/Factions, but where does it state it stops having the old ones? Having one blue eye and one hazel eye, still means you have the blue eye color. Now, if you are talking about genetic coding, that's a different story and one you did not reference in the original question, just your answer.

Again, the rules do not extrapolate further on the possibility of also counting as the datasheet Faction. You are arguing beyond what the rules plainly say. "Counts as X for all rules purposes" is not the same as "Counts as X in addition to the datasheet's Y for all rules purposes."

Your real world analogy fails once you use different questions

Person a has blue eyes
Person b has green eyes
Person c has blue and green eyes

People with blue eyes may board the train. Is c allowed?

People that do not have blue eyes may not board. Is c allowed?

Only people with blue eyes are allowed. Is c allowed?

Only people with only blue eyes are allowed. Is c allowed?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
As I have said, in order for the previous one not to count. As the FAQ points out, just saying as it counts as something else does not completely replace or allow one to ignore what it starts with.

Unnecessary. If we are told to count it as X we should necessarily not count it as something else.

Why?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Now calling it paranoia is rather rude. This is not about paranoia, but rather the fact that certain things we have taken for granted simply are not actually stated to happen. "For all rules purposes" does not mean "for ALL rules purposes" any more. We are not told to replace it, but just apply it.

For all rules purposes has ALWAYS meant "unless otherwise stated". This is you railing against an FAQ you disagree with and throwing up possibilities the rules don't actually make mention of.

Actually, for all rules purposes means jack didly if we go by the FAQ. There are numerous cases where an IC (which counts as part of the unit they join for all rules purposes) does not count as part of the unit, even though it is never explicitly excluded.

And even then, what tells us to actually stop considering what they were previously? You have nothing to go on but an assumption. This is not me railing against an FAQ, this is me applying the concepts that FAQ is introducing and reinterpreting these phrases to match what the FAQ states. By which, "for all rules purposes" means that it applies until it is requested by something else.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

I did not bring up the example, you did. I did not change the goalposts, I placed them appropriately. You tried to change the goalposts with this example, which again, is about making assumptions rather than ignoring the whole context of the statement.

The example has nothing to do with shifting the goalposts. I gave an example of a plain statement with a clear meaning when not further qualified. Saying, "I have the same eye colour as you" is not the same as, "I have the same eye colour as you, but only in one eye."

Trying to further qualify the example it the rule is shifting the goalposts.

I did not change the goalposts. I used the same standard from before all the way through. There is no changing of goalposts in this process. I just pointed out that you still need to run the ball in to the end zone to score, not just be 20 yards ahead of the opponent after an interception.

Just because one didn't add qualifiers doesn't mean we can reject any answers that rely on qualifiers. You did not request a boolean answer (yes/no). The answer could be boolean, but it may be more complicated. If you have one blue eye, then yes, you do have the same eye color as me. But if the other is hazel, then you do not have the same eye color as me as well. So, the answer is not a boolean answer, but more complicated and in depth.

By coming back and saying you wanted it to be a boolean answer is changing the goalposts. By requiring me to go by assumptions I already stated I am rejecting is requiring me to change the goalposts of my question on this concept.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Does someone with their eyes each having different color have one of them? You betcha, they do. Those are the goalposts that I have set by stating, it counts as having these new Roles/Factions, but where does it state it stops having the old ones? Having one blue eye and one hazel eye, still means you have the blue eye color. Now, if you are talking about genetic coding, that's a different story and one you did not reference in the original question, just your answer.

Again, the rules do not extrapolate further on the possibility of also counting as the datasheet Faction. You are arguing beyond what the rules plainly say. "Counts as X for all rules purposes" is not the same as "Counts as X in addition to the datasheet's Y for all rules purposes."

And yet, "for all rules purposes" ignores situations where other things call them in to play, making it not a solid foundation, but a fluid one. The rules do not state "counts as X in addition to the datasheet's Y for all rules purposes", but it also does not state, "replaces X with Y" or "counts as X and ignoring Y".

This standard you are going by does not stand up to the reverse consideration.

nekooni wrote:Your real world analogy fails once you use different questions

That's exactly my point. If I were to say, "My eye colour is blue," you would know I meant both of my eyes are blue. You would have no reason from that statement to assume I meant anything otherwise.

If I actually meant, "My eye colour is blue, except I have heterochromia and my other eye colour is green," that would be an entirely different statement, and simply saying, "My eye colour is blue," would be false.

Charistoph wrote:Why?

Because if you are told to count something as blue, counting it as green would be not counting it as blue.

Actually, for all rules purposes means jack didly if we go by the FAQ. There are numerous cases where an IC (which counts as part of the unit they join for all rules purposes) does not count as part of the unit, even though it is never explicitly excluded.

And even then, what tells us to actually stop considering what they were previously? You have nothing to go on but an assumption. This is not me railing against an FAQ, this is me applying the concepts that FAQ is introducing and reinterpreting these phrases to match what the FAQ states. By which, "for all rules purposes" means that it applies until it is requested by something else.

Then where is a Dedicated Transport requested to be considered as its datasheet Battlefield Role rather than that of the unit it was purchased for?

I did not change the goalposts. I used the same standard from before all the way through. There is no changing of goalposts in this process. I just pointed out that you still need to run the ball in to the end zone to score, not just be 20 yards ahead of the opponent after an interception.

Just because one didn't add qualifiers doesn't mean we can reject any answers that rely on qualifiers. You did not request a boolean answer (yes/no). The answer could be boolean, but it may be more complicated. If you have one blue eye, then yes, you do have the same eye color as me. But if the other is hazel, then you do not have the same eye color as me as well. So, the answer is not a boolean answer, but more complicated and in depth.

By coming back and saying you wanted it to be a boolean answer is changing the goalposts. By requiring me to go by assumptions I already stated I am rejecting is requiring me to change the goalposts of my question on this concept.

We're not going to agree on this. I simply disagree it's correct to assume you can further qualify what otherwise is a very clear statement. You're making assumptions beyond what the rule plainly states. Sure, the FAQ has other answers which require vast leaps beyond what the rules plainly said, but I don't think that means we should start questioning what otherwise has always been plainly understood and agreed, and hasn't itself even been addressed in the FAQ.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

nekooni wrote:Your real world analogy fails once you use different questions

That's exactly my point. If I were to say, "My eye colour is blue," you would know I meant both of my eyes are blue. You would have no reason from that statement to assume I meant anything otherwise.

If I actually meant, "My eye colour is blue, except I have heterochromia and my other eye colour is green," that would be an entirely different statement, and simply saying, "My eye colour is blue," would be false.

Im a trained it professional. Im also going to be trained as something else.
Now someones looking to fill a position that requires a trained it professional. I still qualify.

You saying your eye colour is blue is not false, it is true. Its just not the whole picture, but still its true.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Why?

Because if you are told to count something as blue, counting it as green would be not counting it as blue.

Except the FAQ tells us (or at least implies) that it can still be counted as green as well as blue, and we aren't supposed to forget that it is green.

If an IC from a different detachment joins a unit, it doesn't count as part of the unit for detachment special rules. If a Battle Brother IC joins a unit, that unit is considered both Factions, even though Faction interactions are on a UNIT basis in the BRB, not a model basis.

So, "counts as B" does not mean we get to "ignore A", apparently.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Actually, for all rules purposes means jack didly if we go by the FAQ. There are numerous cases where an IC (which counts as part of the unit they join for all rules purposes) does not count as part of the unit, even though it is never explicitly excluded.

And even then, what tells us to actually stop considering what they were previously? You have nothing to go on but an assumption. This is not me railing against an FAQ, this is me applying the concepts that FAQ is introducing and reinterpreting these phrases to match what the FAQ states. By which, "for all rules purposes" means that it applies until it is requested by something else.

Then where is a Dedicated Transport requested to be considered as its datasheet Battlefield Role rather than that of the unit it was purchased for?

Let me think in similar cases as when it would be for something else that is "counted as".

IC's count as part of their unit for ALL rules purposes as well. Faction rules are unit-level interactions. Role rules are unit-level interactions. Detachment assignments are unit-level interactions. Yet, for Preferred Enemy/Hatred, the IC does not count as the unit's Faction, but includes his own. For detachment special rules, the IC is not counted as part of the unit's detachment, but still considered part of its own so do not benefit from detachment special rules which affect units from that detachment.

To continue on with this train of thought, Rhinos purchased as a Dedicated Transports for a CAD Tactical Squad count as Troops, but do not lose their Fast Attack Role. So they would be Objective Targets in the Scouring, since they have not had their Role replaced, just counting as something else.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
We're not going to agree on this. I simply disagree it's correct to assume you can further qualify what otherwise is a very clear statement. You're making assumptions beyond what the rule plainly states. Sure, the FAQ has other answers which require vast leaps beyond what the rules plainly said, but I don't think that means we should start questioning what otherwise has always been plainly understood and agreed, and hasn't itself even been addressed in the FAQ.

I am not further qualifying an otherwise clear statement, GW is. All I am doing is applying this qualification in areas where it comes up again to be consistent in the definition.

You should know this based on many discussions we both have been involved with that I do not agree with this qualification that GW has presented via the FAQ, and part of the reason is because of the crap storms that develop from this like this line of thought.