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'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

Another case of anti-Tyranid RAYHAW.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

And of course, by that logic, if the Tyrant is removed as a casualty by anything other than Instant Death, the ability does not go away, because the Tyrant is not necessarily dead!

So why does the Hive Commander rule use the term 'while alive' if it isn't meant to tell you that you're allowed to use it while he is in Reserves? The answer put forth by those who voted against me on the council was simply that without that caveat players would wonder if the bonus continues to apply even after the Hive Tyrant has been killed. While I don't personally think this is the case, I can't argue with the fact that it could be the reason.



I think most of us can agree that models which are in Reserves generally shouldn't be able to affect the game unless specified otherwise.

The problem with this "argument" and why it is frivolous is you are saying that models can't effect games from reserves unless specifically stated on one hand whilst claiming the rule needs to states the Hive tyrants effects no longer take place after he is dead. I'd say allowing aura effects to continue after a model has died is a far bigger can of worms than them doing so from reserves. It is obvious to any reaosnable person that aura effects and special rules of models do not effect play after they are dead unless specified otherwise far more so than when they are in reserve.

Essentially you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Again I have to ask what was the motivation for this ruling?

No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm definitely coming down on Flingitnow's way of thinking on this.

There's really no reason in the RAW why the ability wouldn't function in reserve. If the Hive Tyrant hasn't been killed, the ability should function whether the Tyrant is in reserve or on the table.

And of course, by that logic, if the Tyrant is removed as a casualty by anything other than Instant Death, the ability does not go away, because the Tyrant is not necessarily dead!

If the HT was hit with a Wraithcannon it would actually have been transported to the Warp and therefore still alive(for a while, maybe.)

But you know that this is insanity.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

Actually, Flingitnow is the only one basing his argument on RAW. The decisions made by people designing an FAQ should follow suit, and not try to change the rules around to accommodate those who can't read properly.

FlingitNow wrote:I've been informed of the INAT ruling on Hive Commander and wanted to know how people would play it. I persumed the entire point of Hive Commander was to make the Tyranid DS assault army work witth the DP assault rule. Hence you hold everything in reserve and have 1-2 Flyrants ready to DS in with the rest of the army.

The rule states that the Hive Tyrant must be alive to get the +1 reserves roll (lets not bother discussing whether it stacks with multi-hive tryants as that will go nowhere until an FAQ). So is he not alive when sat in reserve? If not what use is he when he comes on if he's already dead? The INAT FAQ says the ruling is he has to be on the table for the bonus to count which completely defeats the entire object of the special rule. I was wondering if any one would play it that way? I had honestly not even considered that as a possibility until informed of the ruling. Do people think that ruling will be adopted, do you think TOs would follow such a bizarre ruling? How would you play it? By RAW and RAI or by this bizarre ruling that makes no sense?

If you want to follow this ruling please let me know why you think it is correct?

Another great reason why INAT can take a flying leap.... into a grease fire.

Its a clear that they dont want hive tyrants deepstriking on turn 2 on a 2+ and crippling 2 units with paroxysm, but what the hell is the fun in that? Also probably has a lot to do with the nerd rage over Doom of Malantai.

The point Yakface was making was that this may be exactly why it says 'while alive'... If it didn't, it could be argued that the ability still applies after he has been killed off.


On a related note, it occurs to me that it is difficult to tell when the Tyrant is no longer alive... If he suffers Instant Death, then he's dead. But if he is removed as a casualty from anything else, the rules tell us that he is not necessarily dead, just incapacitated or otherwise unfit to continue fighting.

Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

Again the RAI has remain abundantly obvious and all the arguments against have been entirely frivolous as towards the authors motivation. whilst all the RAW arguments simply boil down to the ability having even greater effect.

FlingitNow wrote: Frivolous arguments like these don't stop the RAW an RAI being clear from the rules.

RAI is never 'clear from the rules'

'What the rules probably mean but don't actually say' can be extrapolated in many cases. But what people are trying to explain to you is that this is not RAI. You can't know that it's RAI, no matter how much sense it makes as an interpretation. Quite simply because even when you ignore multiple possible interpretations of a given piece of text, you have no way of knowing (without him saying so) whether what the writer actually wrote, and what was printed, was actually what he originally intended.

If I write a rule that 'People with blue shirts can go outside' it's fairly obvious that the rule as written means that people with blue shirts can go outside. By your reasoning, since it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, the RAI is also that people with blue shirts can go outside.

But what if I actually meant to write 'red' instead of blue, and had a brainfade as I was writing it, due to being distracted by something out my window?

I intended the rule to apply to red shirts... but that's not what the rule says. So in that case, the Rule as Intended is very different to what was written in the book. But not only do you have no way of knowing that the RAI is very different, you have no way of even guessing what the rule is supposed to be. You best guess is that the rule is intended to apply to blue shirts... which is very, very wrong. It's correct by RAW, but not by RAI.


Yes, I realise that's a somewhat silly example, and probably not what is going on here. But it is an illustration of how RAI is not the same thing as 'what I think the rule is supposed to mean'

RAI is nothing to do with what you think is reasonable. It is entirely down to what the writer actually meant the rule to do... which is impossible to know unless he tells us.

No, it has no basis in what you *believe* to be RAI, however as has been stated and ignored by you - there are viable alternative explanations that you are blithely dismissing here.

No basis in RAW at all and as yet nothing but frivolous claims the author is a total idiot who wrote two identical rules in different ways just because he's an idiot as to RAI. Or the "classic" they needed to say "alive" because otherwise people will think that the effects lasts after he's dead. Are we to take this means that the GK Psychic hood continues to work after the bearer has died? It doesn't specify the effect stops when the guy dies? What about Eldar Runes of warding?

FlingitNow wrote:Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

To be clear, here... I think the ability is intended to work from Reserves, and I would play that 'removed as a casualty' effectively means 'no longer alive' for the purposes of this rule.

My sole objection here is with you claiming to know the RAI, when you have no way of doing so.

FlingitNow wrote:

The point Yakface was making was that this may be exactly why it says 'while alive'... If it didn't, it could be argued that the ability still applies after he has been killed off.


On a related note, it occurs to me that it is difficult to tell when the Tyrant is no longer alive... If he suffers Instant Death, then he's dead. But if he is removed as a casualty from anything else, the rules tell us that he is not necessarily dead, just incapacitated or otherwise unfit to continue fighting.

Whilst I'll not necassarily argue this is not the RAW, again you are seeking increasing frivolous arguements on the RAI. "he may have copied and pasted from a year old codex", "maybe when he said alive he meant anything other than instant death".

Again the RAI has remain abundantly obvious and all the arguments against have been entirely frivolous as towards the authors motivation. whilst all the RAW arguments simply boil down to the ability having even greater effect.

Again, what you *believe* to be RAI and what is actually RAI is not necessarily the same thing. You are not Robin or any of the other 9 people who developed the ruleset, you CANOT claimn you *know* RAI, at best you can claim what you believe to be RAI.

This is why RAW is an easier discussion than RAI.

FlingitNow wrote:No basis in RAW at all and as yet nothing but frivolous claims the author is a total idiot who wrote two identical rules in different ways just because he's an idiot as to RAI.

You're still missing the point.

The claim is not that the author actually did this. The various 'claims' are simply a way of pointing out that there are other possibilities as to what was intended.

Or the "classic" they needed to say "alive" because otherwise people will think that the effects lasts after he's dead. Are we to take this means that the GK Psychic hood continues to work after the bearer has died? It doesn't specify the effect stops when the guy dies? What about Eldar Runes of warding?

What about a unit that gains Counter-attack due to having Sicarius in the same army? Do they lose it when he dies?

That's the point. The 'While alive' is one of the better inclusions in the codex, because it actually clarifies that the ability does only work while he is alive. Which is important because there are other abilities that affect armies that do still apply after the model is dead.

RAI is never 'clear from the rules'

'What the rules probably mean but don't actually say' can be extrapolated in many cases. But what people are trying to explain to you is that this is not RAI. You can't know that it's RAI, no matter how much sense it makes as an interpretation. Quite simply because even when you ignore multiple possible interpretations of a given piece of text, you have no way of knowing (without him saying so) whether what the writer actually wrote, and what was printed, was actually what he originally intended.

If I write a rule that 'People with blue shirts can go outside' it's fairly obvious that the rule as written means that people with blue shirts can go outside. By your reasoning, since it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, the RAI is also that people with blue shirts can go outside.

But what if I actually meant to write 'red' instead of blue, and had a brainfade as I was writing it, due to being distracted by something out my window?

I intended the rule to apply to red shirts... but that's not what the rule says. So in that case, the Rule as Intended is very different to what was written in the book. But not only do you have no way of knowing that the RAI is very different, you have no way of even guessing what the rule is supposed to be. You best guess is that the rule is intended to apply to blue shirts... which is very, very wrong. It's correct by RAW, but not by RAI.


Yes, I realise that's a somewhat silly example, and probably not what is going on here. But it is an illustration of how RAI is not the same thing as 'what I think the rule is supposed to mean'

RAI is nothing to do with what you think is reasonable. It is entirely down to what the writer actually meant the rule to do... which is impossible to know unless he tells us.

I am aware of this but RAI can be clear from the rules except for in the case of a missprint or typo. Just saying it is impossible to know doesn't make it so. Whilst it is impossible for a computer to know RAI from the RAW human beings have reasoning skills and can see the bigger picture and look at the writers motivation. From this we can determine RAI beyond reasonable doubt.

Beyond reasonable doubt is all we can know about anything even Maths is not knowable as the entire axiomatic system it is based on has been proven to be flawed (either incorrect or incomplete, most mathematicians choose to believe the later as that means all current proofs hold).

All other science is based on experiments and results. Yet statistical evidence is never pure proof. Using maths we can quickly prove this I put forward the theory that all numbers are less than 1,000,000. I have tested this theory 1,000,000 times and got the correct result every time. QED. Any scientific experiment that had 1,000,000 sucessful trials would never be questioned but here the theory is obviously flawed. Likewise we can't even know what is in the text of the rule book because we could just be hallucinating, but it is reasonable to assume we are not.

Heck even asking the wirter is not "knowing" RAI as he could just be lying to us or again we could be hallucinating...

All you can know anything by is beyond reasonable doubt. Here the RAI is obvious beyond reasonable doubt as the RAW is so clear and easily laid out and other rules illustrate how they would have worded it had the rule worked the way INAT is ruling. whjilst we see lots of similar rules worded differently in different and sometimes the same text. never have I seen 2 identical rules worded so differently which is what INAT would have us beleive which is not a reasonable position to hold.

FlingitNow wrote:
The problem with this "argument" and why it is frivolous is you are saying that models can't effect games from reserves unless specifically stated on one hand whilst claiming the rule needs to states the Hive tyrants effects no longer take place after he is dead. I'd say allowing aura effects to continue after a model has died is a far bigger can of worms than them doing so from reserves. It is obvious to any reaosnable person that aura effects and special rules of models do not effect play after they are dead unless specified otherwise far more so than when they are in reserve.

Essentially you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Again I have to ask what was the motivation for this ruling?

I don't think you quite understood my previous post. I was never saying that rules need to specify they stop working when a model dies or else they don't.

I was simply saying that is one possible reason that the author *could* have included that wording in his rule.

There are indeed special rules that most people regularly play affect the army even when the model with the special rule has died...Vulkan's special rule that affect's his army's weapons or the improved Fenrisian Wolves Ld in an army with a character with the 'Saga of the Wolfkin' are a couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head.


And again, there IS a need for a ruling preventing models who are in reserve from affecting the game unless their rule specifies otherwise. There are LOTS of crazy special rules in the game and not all of them have a range or require line of sight. Without such a ruling, these abilities can indeed affect the game while the character remains safely in Reserve...something that most players agree should not be allowed.


So you ask what the motivation was behind the ruling. I can honestly tell you it all came down to being consistent with the ruling we had already made regarding models in Reserve using their abilities to affect the game. Is 'while alive' enough specificity to indicate that the ability is still utilized while the model is not in play? Those who thought it was voted 'yes', those who thought it needed to be more specific (such as with the Eldar Autarch's rule) voted 'no'.

Completely honest here...how powerful the ability was or not did not ever actually come up in this discussion. It did when we were voting on the similar Imperial Guard abilities in the IG codex, but not this time.

Ravenous D wrote:
Another great reason why INAT can take a flying leap.... into a grease fire.

Its a clear that they dont want hive tyrants deepstriking on turn 2 on a 2+ and crippling 2 units with paroxysm, but what the hell is the fun in that? Also probably has a lot to do with the nerd rage over Doom of Malantai.

You're free to believe what you'd like but keep in mind we've already been accused in another thread on Dakka of having some Tyranid bias in that they believe all of our rulings are favorable to the Tyranids...so we're apparently doing something right to convince everybody that we're biased in both directions.

Like I said, the ruling on whether or not the ability could be used in reserves had absolutely nothing to do with the power level of the Tyranids, but rather hinged completely upon whether or not we felt the wording in the rule was specific enough to allow a model out of play to still utilize his ability and affect the game, especially when considering the specificity used for a similar power in the Eldar codex.

As for not allowing the abilities to be cumulative, well that just comes from the fact that GW ruled the same way on the IG abilities and it stands to reason they're going to do the same thing again, so why would we bother ruling the other way when they're just going to change it?

What about a unit that gains Counter-attack due to having Sicarius in the same army? Do they lose it when he dies?

Read the rule the unit gains the ability at no addition cost it is not something Sicarius is doing turn on turn like the reserve bonus again you come up with a frivolous comparison. It is not an aura effect it is a gift for wnat of a better word. The reserve bonus is clearly an aura effect something that is effected every turn not an addition to a particular unit.

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

FlingitNow wrote:The reserve bonus is clearly an aura effect something that is effected every turn not an addition to a particular unit.

What? Seriously, You are very close to becoming the first person I have had to put on Ignore.

How is it an Aura? And how is any of this "Clear", considering the MOUNTAINS of threads on it?

Tri wrote:FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of ruling of theirs i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

In hindsight, the question of why did we rule this way and your reasoning behind why you think it should change should probably have been posted in the INAT announcement thread in the News and Rumors forum or in the FAQ submission thread at the top of this forum.

Then, the poll should have been posted without the biased wording so you could have used that as a basis to help prove your point. As it stands now the poll results are pretty hard to utilize and the thread itself has turned into a discussion about why the ruling was made...

...with that said, I don't think he's bashing the INAT and I think people putting forth reasoned arguments about why they think a ruling is wrong can only help make the INAT a more useful tool.

On the +1 not stacking whilst this is against the RAW the RAI is not clear as the IG ruling has proven, though notably Autrachs were ruled the other way. It is a judgement call and I would not have a problem with anyone making the ruling you did make.

I am not opposed to any sensible logical rulings and I know you guys put a lot of effort into this and it is of great benefit to the community.

I also think you;ve missunderstood my posts:

I was simply saying that is one possible reason that the author *could* have included that wording in his rule.

Yes it is but not a reasonable one. Liek me saying the +1 on the reserves was maybe written by mistake and what he meant was that Tyranids auto win on a 2+ wit infinite re-rolls. That is one possible reason for the rule. Just not a reasonable one.

And again, there IS a need for a ruling preventing models who are in reserve from affecting the game unless their rule specifies otherwise. There are LOTS of crazy special rules in the game and not all of them have a range or require line of sight. Without such a ruling, these abilities can indeed affect the game while the character remains safely in Reserve...something that most players agree should not be allowed.

Again fair enough, likewise a ruling on aura effects lasting after a model has died. Army wide bonus' are different likewise unit upgrades are different they effect the unit composition not an ongoing bonus like the reserves bonus.

You're free to believe what you'd like but keep in mind we've already been accused in another thread on Dakka of having some Tyranid bias in that they believe all of our rulings are favorable to the Tyranids...so we're apparently doing something right to convince everybody that we're biased in both directions.

That ruling made one unit work properly rather than being entirely useless (and was consistent with previous GW rulings). This ruling knobbles the entire concept of the spod army that is the biggest addition to this codex. With no DP assault rule this is the only way the all DS army can function in any sort of manner. With this ruling you have essentially thrown the Mycetic spore out of the window and reduced Hive Commander to 1 unit of troops gains outflank...

You are claiming that 2 identical rules are written entirely differently for no reason other than you don't wnat one of the rules to work the way it is written.

so does any one have an answer, or a link to this question?

regardless of whether or not its bias still leaves the question?

does the tyrant get the +1 reserve if he is

A.) on the table
or
B.) alive ( awesome job GW for your vague connotations)

i guess the real question is what they mean by "alive" ?

I assume that any special modifiers to rolls coming from a unit must be in play and on the table unless specifically stated in rules, errata etc.

however:
I havent followed this rule lately, but on the 4th ed of lysander for imperial fists - teleport phalanx, he got a bonus to DS all terminator units at once. i know this isn't a very good example, other than he uses this rule while in reserve- meaning "alive" but not on the table and not in play; yet. maybe i am misinformed or it has been re-iterated later in a FAQ to be more clear. (not to mention we are in 5th ed)

even though i might get crap for this, i wouldn't personally use the + to rolls in this instance, unless he is in play and on the table. a commander cannot judge the outcome of a battle unless he is present and involved in a battle? even if its from an observational stand point - still involved in battle plans and whatnot.

this is only an opinion and i don't think i am right, just looking for a correct answer

thank you

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but thats only if it comes up)

If I could change the polling or remove it I would. I am not bashing INAT I am "bashing" this particular ruling.

...because you believe you know RAI, yet you cannot.

The reasoning has been explained and makes perfect sense to me as to why they came to that conclusion - and it was even said it was a split vote.

There doesnt seem a huge point in continuing this thread, and creating a new poll, free fo the author bias, may not help as it is too fresh - you may get spoiler votes.

yakface wrote:
...with that said, I don't think he's bashing the INAT and I think people putting forth reasoned arguments about why they think a ruling is wrong can only help make the INAT a more useful tool.

fair enough ... just doesn't seem the best way to deal with this. Personally i would have asked for people views on INAT ruling rather then have any poll

Ok... Possibly a poll do you agree with the INAT ruling Yes, No. ... But even then it doesn't seem to be serving any purpose

FlingitNow wrote:

FlingitNow ... half this thread is here not because we disagree with your view on the INAT ruling ... what we want is a fair polling.

Was the point of starting this thread just to bash the INAT? I must admit there are a number of their rulings i don't like ether ... thing is no one force you to play with it (at event you may but that's only if it comes up)

If I could change the polling or remove it I would. I am not bashing INAT I am "bashing" this particular ruling.

Ah well Don't think I've ever bothered trying polling ... you asking a MOD to remove it?

Ah well Don't think I've ever bothered trying polling ... you asking a MOD to remove it?

Yeah I'm happy for a MOD to remove the poll I don't think it serves a purpose and every one took it the wrong way...

I think that one of the problems is that people who don't agree with this ruling are being framed as arguing from a position of RAI. This really isn't the case.

If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

If the Tyrant is in reserve, has it lost all of it's wounds? No. The ability functions.

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

Monster Rain wrote:I think that one of the problems is that people who don't agree with this ruling are being framed as arguing from a position of RAI. This really isn't the case.

It's not even that. The first option claims to have a monopoly on both RAW and RAI. I'd happily vote for a RAI over RAW option in a poll. -This- poll, however, has 2 options. The first is implied to be 'by the rules- both as written, and as intended' while the second is 'some schlock the INAT made up.'

Gee, I wonder which one the author supports?


A well-written poll should not make one choice seem the 'obvious' or 'correct' choice.

FlingitNow wrote:I am aware of this but RAI can be clear from the rules except for in the case of a missprint or typo.

Or an oversight on the part of the writer, as in the case of the Inquisitor/Assassin issue.

And that's entirely the point... Since we can't know without the writer telling us if something is a misprint, or a typo, or an oversight we can't, without some amount of doubt, make a claim to know RAI.

We can see what the rules say. but since we don't have all of the background information behind why the rule was written as it was, the intention behind them is never going to be anything more than a guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

We've already established that the RAW fails on the 'alive' thing. There's no need to beat it into the ground, Gwar.

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If the Tyrant is "Alive" which is understood to mean "hasn't lost all of it's wounds" then it's Hive Commander ability is functioning.

Please, can you provide a Page Number? I can't find that rule in my Rulebook...

Gwar! I'm going to set a good example for you and directly answer a question.

Page 6, under Wounds. And Page 24, under Removing Casualties. Oh, and cap it off by reading page 26's bit on Multiple Wound Models. "Dead" is universally understood in this context to mean(and constantly used interchangeably with) "Removed as a casualty" and so "Alive" would mean "Not having been Removed as a Casualty." If it's still unclear after that there is no helping you.

Or an oversight on the part of the writer, as in the case of the Inquisitor/Assassin issue.

And that's entirely the point... Since we can't know without the writer telling us if something is a misprint, or a typo, or an oversight we can't, without some amount of doubt, make a claim to know RAI.

We can see what the rules say. but since we don't have all of the background information behind why the rule was written as it was, the intention behind them is never going to be anything more than a guess.

How can we know what the rules say? We could be hallucinating or our copies could have a miss-print. So we can't see what the rules say as we have no way of knowing we are not hallucinating.

I claim to know RAI as much as I can know anything. there always has to be some doubt about anything because nothing can be known.

So yes I do know RAI as in the meaning of being as certain as it is possible to be given that your definition of knowing shows no boundary and thus we know nothing. Therefore the word knowing becomes meaningless.

I know RAI beyond all reasonable doubt. Becaus ethe argument against are: "they wrote the exact same rule completely different in 2 places in the codex because they are idiots and the way the wrote it under lictors is what is right". This is a nonsense argument. Just like trying to claim Bjorn invulnerable save is intentionally useless. the other part of the argument is "well they put in alive there because otherwise we assume it would stil work when he's dead, however we won;t assume it works when he's in reserve unless it expressly says even though it does we'll ignore it because they are clearly clearing up the power being used when he's dead..." again a total nonsense argument.

Until I see someone come up with a plausible reason why a writer would write the same rule so completely differently on two pages of the same book then RAI being anything other than the RAW is a frivolous and ludicrous position to hold. Just as it would be me saying the rule meant to say Tyranids win on a 2+ with infinite re-rolls. We all know GW and their rule righting it is just not very clear. This interpretation has just as much merit as the INAT FAQs "interpretation" of the rule.