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 law is to be strictly interpreted to prevent people from suffering the wrath of the state. This is a game that is rife with problematic wording. If we were to strictly interpret everything that is written you would have to have a law degree just to start the game. And even then I don't think that you could start the game as there are some basic understandings that are not explicitly stated.

Backfire wrote:It's not a "later publication", it's part of the same publication published in two parts. Part 2 does not override part 1, unless specifically stated, which it does not.

Bold for emphasis. The publications were 1 month apart, even if they are for a single document, they have still been published in two entirely different editions of White Dwarf, that's an entire month in which changes can be made. You "publish" publications, simple as that.

It is btw mistake to assume that judicial decisions are made strictly along legal equivalent of RAW. In reality, legal text is usually interpreted with lawmakers' intent (RAI) in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spiku wrote:

Backfire wrote:It's not a "later publication", it's part of the same publication published in two parts. Part 2 does not override part 1, unless specifically stated, which it does not.

Bold for emphasis. The publications were 1 month apart, even if they are for a single document, they have still been published in two entirely different editions of White Dwarf, that's an entire month in which changes can be made. You "publish" publications, simple as that.

And nowhere does it state publication has to be published in one part, does it?

Encyclopaedia Britannica part E-H does not override or obsolete part A-D.

Those are however seperate publications, and if you can provide a citation in E-H that contradicts A-D I would be most interested.

You will note, btw, that I did not suggest there is no RAI in law. Further, you will note my position is that of RAI, give that I believe Celestine to be an IC. I just accept that this is not as RAW.

I would also point out that only ambiguity is up for "RAI", such as outdated terms with regard to gender and parent. Where there exists a precedent (Such as Re:L cases), then we can move from RAW. Quite often it is more that the Judge is not fully familiar with the exact terms of the law, which causes Orders to go into place that are RAI, and sometimes not as intended. It's all very interesting I assure you.

Spiku wrote:You will note, btw, that I did not suggest there is no RAI in law. Further, you will note my position is that of RAI, give that I believe Celestine to be an IC. I just accept that this is not as RAW.

If omission in the second half equates to redaction of the first, then the new Codex: Sisters of Battle does not invalidate Codex: Witch Hunters, as only the first half stipulated this was the case. Instead, it is a separate Codex and Codex: Witch Hunters is still legal. Really, this is a silly debate - Celestine, even in the second half, has rules which are redundant if she is not an IC.

I would draw your attention, Mythal, to the fact it was I who first pointed out the various rules which clearly indicate Celestine being an IC earlier in this very thread, if we wish to talk about pointless debates.

I would also point out that the omission here relates to a specific rule for a character, which is not listed when listing specific rules for that character. You will note that this is a two part Codex, in two serperate publications, second of which is referred to by the first publication. Furthermore, as far as the rules go the most recent Codex is law; Witch Hunters has no place here, and is an entirely pointless debate. Though I accept this was the point of your post.

Spiku wrote:Though I accept this was the point of your post.

Just so. As I've said, repeatedly, anyone who makes an issue over this can have the situation rationally explained to them. If they maintain their stance, they can play someone else. Simple as.

Spiku wrote:Part 2 says she is not an IC as that she is an IC is missing, surely. I mean it doesn't explicitly state that my Seraphim aren't Scouts and Infiltrate, but they aren't.


Part 2 came a month later, which is one month more time in which it could have been vetted. It is the most recent publication, simple as that. It is the most recent publication, and you are "clutching" just as much to use the earlier publication.

I doubt anyone here doubts that she is in fact an IC, she is clearly suposed to be, but RAW it is not listed in the most recent publication.


Were a statutory law to be amended in a principal leading document released in direction documents part 2 of which was one month later and had contradictions to the previous released directions, part 2 would take priority unless an amendment was written under the slip rule. It's a very simple concept.

This has absolutely no relevance to a statutory law being amended. This is a CODEX that was released in two parts. Both parts make up ONE document, ONE document that has the saint listed as a IC twice. There is apart 1 and a part 2, of which we are to make into one codex.

One document with parts published 1 month apart, in which the most recent part does not list her as an IC. Just because it makes a single document, does not stop the parts being published seperately.

I am not sure why you want to keep this debate going, mind you, given that all the parties involved at this point agree that she is RAI an IC

She is also RAW an IC. Twice.

Just one more try: what if, St Celestine's had a full, normal stats profile listed in part 1; and in part 2, exact same profile, except 'W' column was left blank.

Would you go on to argue that St Celestine has no Wound characteristic and thus she cannot be wounded at all? Because after all, part 2 overrides part 1 right?

Spiku wrote:Part 2 says she is not an IC as that she is an IC is missing, surely. I mean it doesn't explicitly state that my Seraphim aren't Scouts and Infiltrate, but they aren't.

There's a part saying that Celestine is an IC. There's no part saying she isn't. There's no part saying that your Seraphim are Scouts, thus there's no need to tell you that they're not.

Spiku wrote:One document with parts published 1 month apart, in which the most recent part does not list her as an IC. Just because it makes a single document, does not stop the parts being published seperately.

I am not sure why you want to keep this debate going, mind you, given that all the parties involved at this point agree that she is RAI an IC

You keep championing publishing date as your argument when it has zero relevance.

Part 2 is not an update to part 1. Part 2 is not an amendment to part 1. There are absolutely zero grounds that publishing date is inherently linked to what takes precedence in this instance. Part 1 is incidental to part 2 as part 2 is incidental to part 1. You do not have a codex with only one of the parts. They were published separately to make a whole document.

When taken as a whole document, Codex Sisters of Battle, the saint is an IC per RAW.

It's just a statement of fact: the second publication is the most recent, therefore the most up to date. It does not include she is an IC. Clearly I won't be moved on it, especially as there is no way to contradict that it is the most recent publication.

Backfire: If there were no wound value, it would clearly be a typo, a more sensible comment would have been "if it said 1 wound". I would imagine with no wounds she'd be removed as a casualty for being reduced below 1 wound? I supose a counter question might be: What is the S of an Arco?

Also I don't see why people keep referring to the points that DO refer to her as an IC, given that, once again, I pointed out the passage most people use as secondary proof she is an IC, and I infact believe her to be an IC.

There's just no question that the second half of the codex is the most recent publication. I mean feel free to keep posting on the matter, but I don't see how any of us are going to get something new from this.

Spiku wrote:
Backfire: If there were no wound value, it would clearly be a typo,

How do you know? Maybe between the releases they realized that making her unkillable fits better her fluff? I mean, it actually would make sort of sense...

The between the releases argument is moot because they'll release the joint pdf soon enough and that will contain both sections in one file that has a more recent release date than the magazines. I'm sure they will not make any typo fixes to that and that it will just the two articles cut and pasted.

I agree that sincer her one entry says she has it, and other doesn't say she doesn't have it = she has it. The counter claim made about seraphim not having scout isn't an equal statement because the bestiary doesn't say they are. Both sections say they don't have scout.

Spiku wrote:It's just a statement of fact: the second publication is the most recent, therefore the most up to date. It does not include she is an IC. Clearly I won't be moved on it, especially as there is no way to contradict that it is the most recent publication.

Backfire: If there were no wound value, it would clearly be a typo, a more sensible comment would have been "if it said 1 wound". I would imagine with no wounds she'd be removed as a casualty for being reduced below 1 wound? I supose a counter question might be: What is the S of an Arco?

Also I don't see why people keep referring to the points that DO refer to her as an IC, given that, once again, I pointed out the passage most people use as secondary proof she is an IC, and I infact believe her to be an IC.

There's just no question that the second half of the codex is the most recent publication. I mean feel free to keep posting on the matter, but I don't see how any of us are going to get something new from this.

It is a statement of fact that has absolutely zero validity for placing one part on a higher value then another. They are two parts of one whole. Each cannot be played separately and each are not the whole. That is why there is absolutely no need to contradict that the second part is the most recent publication. Your entire argument is irrelevant.

morgendonner wrote:The counter claim made about seraphim not having scout isn't an equal statement because the bestiary doesn't say they are. Both sections say they don't have scout.

That was a response to the looseness of saying "Part 2 does not say she isn't an IC, it just doesn't say whether or not she is." When by not saying that she is, IS, saying that she isn't, because it isn't listed there. I simply don't agree that her not having it in the second section means she does have it because of the first, just because of the date between release. I certainly don't think that Celestine isn't an IC by intention, mind you, as I have stated several times.

Backfire wrote:How do you know? Maybe between the releases they realized that making her unkillable fits better her fluff? I mean, it actually would make sort of sense...

Because the stat values are 1 to 10, and she would need a seperate definition given she has no AV. Like I said, surely having no wounds would mean she would be removed as a casualty for having less than 1 wound, and just infinite cylce herself on 4+~. But to put a question that actually exists, what do you consider the Arco S to be?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:You have stated nothing new of your opinion, and as I said previously, I stand by mine. Yes they are two parts of one whole. One part is more recent. The argument that it is two parts of the same whole is irrelevant in light of that. The most recent one was released with a month of the other one being on view. Until it is amended or FAQ'd, it will remain the most up to date rules by one month.


I agree on the mooting of the subject Morgendonner mentioned. I also don't quite understand why there is so much reitteration going on when everything is covered. I shall move for a mod to lock the thread.

The second part is not the most up to date rules by one month, it is the second part of a two part codex that was released one month later. Try and play the "most recently updated rules" as you put it without the rest of the codex.

You have a choice, either not play SoB at all by insisting that they are two separate entities whose relevance and precedence has been set by their release date,

or

Play SoB by accepting that the releases are two parts of one whole that are to be read and played as a codex.

Why would I not use the previous part just because the second part was released later? I am simply stating that the rules in the second part, if contradicting the previous part, would override the previous part given they are most recent, and would have had an entire month to review the previous part. At no point have I, at any point, stated that either part can be used independantly. Further, the Arco S value is a like situation.

My choice is not the two you have presented, nor do I see why on earth you would think that is the situation.

They are two seperate publications, composing two halfs of one Codex. I can play SoB just fine with both parts, and I can still state that the second part is the most recent publication, which it is, and that its rules should supercede any that it contradicts, which it does.

I am then perfectly at liberty to point out the RAI with the lines I have quoted previously, and to play Celestine as an IC, as I do, and not play with anyone who says she isn't, which I've never had to do because no one would argue the RAI.

Spiku wrote:Why would I not use the previous part just because the second part was released later? I am simply stating that the rules in the second part, if contradicting the previous part, would override the previous part given they are most recent, and would have had an entire month to review the previous part. At no point have I, at any point, stated that either part can be used independantly. Further, the Arco S value is a like situation.

My choice is not the two you have presented, nor do I see why on earth you would think that is the situation.

They are two seperate publications, composing two halfs of one Codex. I can play SoB just fine with both parts, and I can still state that the second part is the most recent publication, which it is, and that its rules should supercede any that it contradicts, which it does.

I am then perfectly at liberty to point out the RAI with the lines I have quoted previously, and to play Celestine as an IC, as I do, and not play with anyone who says she isn't, which I've never had to do because no one would argue the RAI.

And you are wrong in that because each part is not a separate entity on their own. You take the codex as a whole and read it as a whole, and the saint is an IC. It makes no matter that they are separate publications. They make a single codex, which is not played on a publication by publication basis, but as a single publication. The second part of the codex was not a FAQ or a Errata, it was the second part of the codex.

You have yet to show any argument that supports that a two part codex is validated by the publication date of each part over another. Your argument has no basis, not only for the game system but even in your created statutory law analogy, because the nowhere is it stated in the second WD that the second part of the codex is an amendment or errata to the first part of the codex.

A great man once said:
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


No amount of your stating I am wrong, with just as much backing attached to your "argument" as is to my own statement, is going to suddenly turn my point of view to yours. You don't agree with me, and I have stated my reasons. I still don't understand why you feel the necessity to press the matter given that we all agree that she is an IC. I have no intention of continuing a circular discussion.

Because I'm right ;3

All this... is running around in circles, for not much.

Spiku wrote:would have had an entire month to review the previous part.

You do realise that this is GW you are talking about?

Spiku wrote:A great man once said:
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


No amount of your stating I am wrong, with just as much backing attached to your "argument" as is to my own statement, is going to suddenly turn my point of view to yours. You don't agree with me, and I have stated my reasons. I still don't understand why you feel the necessity to press the matter given that we all agree that she is an IC. I have no intention of continuing a circular discussion.

Because I'm right ;3

If you agree she's an IC then seriously, why are you even arguing?

I see heads exploding next month when this thing is released as a single downloadable .pdf on the GW website.