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.

The same people do not work on every codex. It may be an oversight in one codex while remembered in another.

Gravmyr wrote:
The same people do not work on every codex. It may be an oversight in one codex while remembered in another.

That's irrelevant. All we have to go on it what's actually written. What is NOT written is a restriction on when the Icon can be used.

 undertow wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The same people do not work on every codex. It may be an oversight in one codex while remembered in another.

That's irrelevant. All we have to go on it what's actually written. What is NOT written is a restriction on when the Icon can be used.

Yet there is a restriction written into the actual rulebook, covering this situation.

Rigeld - not in every situation. 1+1 usually equals 2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The same people do not work on every codex. It may be an oversight in one codex while remembered in another.

That's irrelevant. All we have to go on it what's actually written. What is NOT written is a restriction on when the Icon can be used.

Yet there is a restriction written into the actual rulebook, covering this situation.

Rigeld - not in every situation. 1+1 usually equals 2.

No, the Icon (which is the 'special rule' or 'ability' that the unit has) does not have ANY timing associated with its rule. The only timing that you are claiming applies is the general timing of units arriving from reserve.

The points I posted in my last few posts are NOT a slippery slope fallacy. They are literally the exact same situation as the Icon...they are special rules that a unit has which have to be used at the 'start of the turn' when the unit is arriving from reserve.

So if you claim that an Icon cannot be used in this situation because it happens to be being resolved at 'the start of the turn' then that SAME mandate must apply to all special rules and abilities that happen to be used at the start of the turn (when units are arriving from reserve).

So by your reasoning, among other things:

Any special rules/abilities that affect a unit's movement cannot be used when they are arriving from reserve (because those rules MUST be used at the start of the turn in this case).
Any special rules/abilities that would boost a unit's save at all could not be used on dangerous terrain rolls when they are arriving from reserve (because those rules MUST be used at the start of the turn in this case).



If you claim that these are examples of a slippery slope fallacy, then you need to prove WHY that is the case. I contend that they are EXACTLY the same as the Icon rules...there is NO timing written in the Icon rules, so the only basis for saying that they 'must' be used at the start of the turn is because reserves are arriving at the start of the turn.

So that exact same logic applies to EVERY SINGLE special rule/ability that would affect a unit arriving from reserve.


It is an absolute absurd interpretation of the rule being discussed, and you continue to dodge how what you're claiming applies to other special rules and abilities that happen to be utilized at the start of the turn because that's when reserves arrive.

"Dodging" because they are irrelevant to this discussion is not "dodging", it is pointing out it is irrleevant to this discussion.

You, on the other hand, have continually dodged the requisite question - which is why you are changing "must be" into "can only be"

Pleae answer why you have done that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Dodging" because they are irrelevant to this discussion is not "dodging", it is pointing out it is irrleevant to this discussion.

You, on the other hand, have continually dodged the requisite question - which is why you are changing "must be" into "can only be"

Pleae answer why you have done that.

How are they possibly irrelevant? Do you agree or disagree that those examples are correct using your logic? That is all I'm asking. Tell me if you agree that those examples are correct based on your argument and if they are not, then precisely why not?


As to me dodging your question, I have not. I've already answered it previously and I will do so again:

There are many rules in this game that have a specific timing written into them. For example, the rules for blessings and maledictions, to name just one type, specify that they are used at the start of a turn.

The word 'must' in this instance is not referring to the fact that these special rules/abilities 'can only' be used at the start of the turn, but rather that if a player wishes to use said power, then they 'must' do so at the start of the turn.

That *is* the easiest way to identify and explain such a situation. You may disagree and say that the rules would be more clear if they had instead specified 'can only' in this instance, but I disagree. The vast majority of people (including myself) read this rule perfectly clear one way, and only a tiny minority (including yourself) seem to think it says something to the contrary...and we're talking about interpretations of 'RAW' here. This thread has shown that most people read the text "any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn" and understand that to mean abilities or psychic powers which have to be used at the start of the turn (or to be more precise: abilities and special rules, which if they are to be used, must be used at the start of the turn).

We can run a 'RAW' poll if you want to see what people actually decipher that sentence to be, but I would gladly wager all kinds of money that the majority of readers do not read what you are saying.

So I have answered your question to the best of my ability, I would appreciate if you would answer mine. Do you agree with the situations I've posted previously that would result from following the rule the way you claim it reads? And if not, precisely what is the difference between my examples and the Icon?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - not in every situation. 1+1 usually equals 2.

I am the only person at a tournament with a Hive Tyrant. A Hive Tyrant is left on a table after a game. Someone asks who's it is - the answer is that it must be mine.
I have only a $1 bill. A vending machine only takes quarters. I must not be able to purchase from that vending machine.
You're referring to interesting mathematics that (iirc) makes incorrect assumptions. This means you must be wrong.

In normal English you have defined "must" incorrectly and are using it wrong.

"You must use the key to start the car."

Does that mean that the key can only be used to start the car, or can it be used to unlock the doors and the trunk?

Ghaz, please address Yak's question.

If a model has Move Through Cover, thus automatically passing Dangerous Terrain tests, and it Deep Strikes into Difficult Terrain, does it have to take a Dangerous Terrain test? According to the rationale you're using for the Icon, it seems that it would.

 Ghaz wrote:
"You must use the key to start the car."

Does that mean that the key can only be used to start the car, or can it be used to unlock the doors and the trunk?

Neither. It means that to start the car, the key must be used. As in, you cannot start the car with a banana.
If you read that sentence and parse must as a restriction on the key, you've parsed it incorrectly.

You could, with a sufficiently wonky banana.

So a restriction on abilities being used at the start of the turn is not a restriction on the ability being used at the start of the turn?

Yak - I agree that it leads to an absurd situation, and therefore is likely not what is meant. I already stated that, more than once. Agreeing with specific examples of why I think it leads to absurd situations is not required. "must be" in this case should have been written as "can only be", otherwise it CAN be parsed in the way Ghaz and myself have shown.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You could, with a sufficiently wonky banana.

A banana that's shaped like a key and can be used as one and therefore is one?

So a restriction on abilities being used at the start of the turn is not a restriction on the ability being used at the start of the turn?

... No? What?

"must be" in this case should have been written as "can only be", otherwise it CAN be parsed in the way Ghaz and myself have shown.

Well, you've been shown that you must be reading it incorrectly...

 Mannahnin wrote:
Ghaz, please address Yak's question.

If a model has Move Through Cover, thus automatically passing Dangerous Terrain tests, and it Deep Strikes into Difficult Terrain, does it have to take a Dangerous Terrain test? According to the rationale you're using for the Icon, it seems that it would.

A Daemon of Tzeentch deepstrikes into difficult terrain & fails a dangerous terrain test.

Can it reroll a '1' on its invulnerable save?
Can it roll an invulnerable save at all, given that the special rule Daemon is what gives it a save?

Way back when, when whom-ever quoted the deffinition of the word must, did so, I noted to myself that it was deffinition #2 that you used. Why did you pick that one and ignored all of the other ones?

The must does not mean can only be argument is silly, in my opinion, because english has many deffinitions for most words, and sometimes must does mean can only be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yak - I agree that it leads to an absurd situation, and therefore is likely not what is meant. I already stated that, more than once. Agreeing with specific examples of why I think it leads to absurd situations is not required. "must be" in this case should have been written as "can only be", otherwise it CAN be parsed in the way Ghaz and myself have shown.

Oh, I agree that the rule can be parsed incorrectly, if one ignores what effects using the resultant parsing consistently has. This has always been true in 40k.

But you and Ghaz were adamant that in fact, your parsing was the only possible one, that "must be" can never mean "can only be"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
as the meaning of "must be" is NOT "can only be".

Ghaz wrote:Again, its already been covered that 'must be' does not equal 'can only be' yet so many in this thread can not get past that.

(Consider example sentence like "You 'must be' joking", which is can obviously parsed as "You 'can only be' joking".)

There are incredible many absurd situations that happen only via the interpretation used by you and Ghaz:
For example, Tau have a Warlord trait that gives special ability: "Your Warlord, and any unit he joins, does not scatter when arriving by Deep Strike." If we use your definition of must, this ability (and in fact every special rule/ability that states model does not scatter) does not work when arriving from Reserves.

In fact, many of these scenarios were presented to you and Ghaz early on, but you were unwilling to actually answer any of them, instead either ignoring them or claiming they were irrelevant. Why was that?

As final point, when there are two possible ways to parse sentence, one leads to completely ridiculous results (and many rules never working as they obviously were intended) and other works perfectly fine, why would anyone actually argue that the first one is the only possible correct parsing of the rules? (Without going and adding the "strict RAW" disclaimer)

Luide wrote:

As final point, when there are two possible ways to parse sentence, one leads to completely ridiculous results (and many rules never working as they obviously were intended) and other works perfectly fine, why would anyone actually argue that the first one is the only possible correct parsing of the rules? (Without going and adding the "strict RAW" disclaimer)

Well said, and this was the ultimate point I was trying to get to when attempting to get Nos & Ghaz to admit that their interpretation of the sentence *does* lead to absurd situations involving other special rules and abilities.


The vast majority of people reading this rule understand that it is referencing a specific type of special rule/ability, one that has a timing written in the rules for that ability/special rule that requires that it be used at the start of the turn. For clarity, perhaps GW should have given these types of rules/abilities a specific 'game term' (like 'start of turn abilities' or something like that) which would have made it much easier for them to write other rules and restrictions that impact these 'start of turn' abilities without causing this type of confusion in even a small number of players.

Yak - except I had already said it led to silly situations. You were getting me to "admit" to something I said was the case.

That is why it was irrelevant.

I agree with cowmonaut's side of the argument.

The restriction you are quoting, page 125 of the reserve rules, states the word must. Abilities that fall under this restriction all clearly state something along the lines of 'must be used at the start of the movement phase' within that ability or special rule. Any ability that does not have the limitation 'must be used at the start of the movement phase' is not bound by the restriction you are quoting.

The Icon in question does not have this limitation, therefore it does not fill the requirements of the page 125 restriction. This could very well be an oversight and that would be an easy argument to make. Every other ability or special rule that grants a similar 'no scatter' effect contains a line that states the unit needs to be on the table at the start of the turn, all to ensure this debate doesn't happen. However, until they fix this over sight it is rules as written that a icon prevents you from scattering even if that Icon arrived by deep strike on the same turn.

Honestly: If it wasn't for this limitation worked into the restriction on page 125 you would be able to argue that every movement phase based ability or special rule does not come into affect the turn the unit deploys. That would include some very basic and always active rules, such as moving through cover or anything outside of the standard 6" movement. Clearly, that was not what the designers intended when they put the restriction on page 125, which is why it is written in such a way it limits it to abilities that contain the 'at the start of the movement phase' terminology.