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.

No one is arguing that that the words unless otherwise stated exist

The argument is that anywhere is not sufficient to meet the requirements for otherwise stated

You need to explicitly state

As on it would need to say in you can deploy anywhere 12" from the enemy ignoreing the limitation on being 3" from the enemy or words to that effect

No its RAI not RAW you can tell its an interpretation because of half the posters are disagreeing with you. If it was RAW we would all be in agreement.

So the feculant gnarlmore faq was written before the 3" faq limitation and they never changed it. So currently the feculant gnarlmore must be both 1" away and 3" away in practice this makes half the line redundant however the gnarlmore specific faq adds an additional limitation that each gnarlmore must be within 6" Could it do with being tidied up absolutely but both rules add a restriction and completely removing either changes things neither has any relevance on whether or not anyways is sufficient

For a good description of what RAW means

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/795245.page

Post 2021/02/03 15:21:50

If everyone can agree what the wording means its a RAW argument

Its a RAW argument that their needs to be a stated exemption

If the wording is unclear then you are not dealing with RAW you are dealing with interpretation. So your argument is RAI as in it was intended that anywhere is an exemption

The problem is when that intention is examined you can't answer the basic of why anywhere is but wholey within isn't or why that restriction is ignored and others arn't. Or why in other circumstances rules that overrule restrictions directly reference the rule they are overruleing eg assault weapons directly reference advancing smite exemption directly references the restriction on manifesting the same psychic power however this rule doesn't directly refer to or reference that rule at all it just has the word anywhere

Therefore anyone coming from a standpoint you require a stated exemption referencing that rule is going to look at that rule and say its not written in the rule because it doesn't mention the rule. Your saying it doesnt need that but it does unless you can answer the questions in the previous paragraph and you have been unable to do so just dismissing them. Because the other RAI argument that you need a specifically stated exemption referencing the rule doesn't throw up these problems

You also don't know what a strawman is - a strawman is when you build up a seperate easier to defeat argument then defeat it instead of addressing the actual argument. Since these arguments are central to the discussion of why one RAI works and one doesn't, if your saying our straws were successfully defeated by our argument your effectively saying yours is wrong.

Your argument is that they """only""" said "anywhere" and not "anywhere but also anywhere within this range limitation that is also covered by us saying anywhere".

That's it. That's your whole argument. That the words they have used haven't actually been used.

I don't know how to argue against a position that is literally not using the rules as they are written in plain english.

If they FAQ in the 3" range limitation, I guess we'll know what they intended. But that isn't the case right now.

Does "place anywhere" necessarily include "within 3" "? Yes. Of course it dues.
If you exclude 3" then you are changing the rule

Proven.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Your argument is that they """only""" said "anywhere" and not "anywhere but also anywhere within this range limitation that is also covered by us saying anywhere".

That's it. That's your whole argument. That the words they have used haven't actually been used.

I don't know how to argue against a position that is literally not using the rules as they are written in plain english.

If they FAQ in the 3" range limitation, I guess we'll know what they intended. But that isn't the case right now.

No the arguments is that it says anywhere - it does not say anywhere, ignoring the restriction (any specific reference to the restriction would do - the point your misrepresenting was just how I would word it) um that is using the rules as written in plain. Does it directly state it ignores the restriction Answer=No

Its easy you just have to answer the points we have asked you to explain or we accept you are wrong ignoring them just proves our point because it shows us you have no answer

The intention we can never be sure on unless they clarify, we can be clear one rule works and one doesn't because you have not been able to answer our point




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Does "place anywhere" necessarily include "within 3" "? Yes. Of course it dues.
If you exclude 3" then you are changing the rule

Proven.

That's not how restrictions work

RULE A - Place anywhere within 12" This is permissive it tells you what you can do
RULE B - when deploying do not place within 3" of terrain This is restrictive it modifies rule A

All you have proven is that Rule A includes 3" if you ignore Rule B

To date there has been no proof that you should ignore rule A as rule A does not reference rule B

While the assertion that rule A ignores Rule B doesn't work because when you copy that same logic and apply to other situations you should be able to deploy on other models or it causes assault weapons not to function. Essentially your left with the Question why does Rule A ignore B and not those other obviously absurd things. Which noone arguing that case has been able to answer.

No, you have ignored every instance of plain english that has the fort rule allowing exemptions and the malignifier doing so.

There’s no argument from you, you’re just claiming that every (literally every) example and FAQ proving the above point either doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply despite not having been updated to reflect the rules that you want them to say.

They could have updated old FAQ language, they didn’t, those FAQs and examples apply until they are otherwise changed.

Unless otherwise stated

Anywhere includes the set of all measurements
This set includes the measurement of within 3"

So it has been stated. By using an even more inclusive term.

Done.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
No, you have ignored every instance of plain english that has the fort rule allowing exemptions and the malignifier doing so.

There’s no argument from you, you’re just claiming that every (literally every) example and FAQ proving the above point either doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply despite not having been updated to reflect the rules that you want them to say.

They could have updated old FAQ language, they didn’t, those FAQs and examples apply until they are otherwise changed.

I accept your acknowledgement that you are unable to address our questions and therefore admit you are wrong.

I don't want them to say anything - I have no desire on what the wording is. However if it says it ignores the restriction then it does - if it doesn't mention the restriction it doesn't.

Indeed they could update wording, however the current wording is clear you can't deploy a fortification within 3" of a terrain unless it directly states you can - Not implies or could be read as - directly states and it doesn't


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless otherwise stated

Anywhere includes the set of all measurements
This set includes the measurement of within 3"

So it has been stated. By using an even more inclusive term.

Done.

I accept your acknowledgement that you are unable to answer the questions and therefore admit you are wrong

Again you have successfully proved A exists if you ignore B well done....

You have again proved that ignoring B is not stated - why because you had to come out with a list of reasoning as to why B was included within the A rule despite it not referencing the B rule. If it was stated you would just provide the quote with the statement directly naming/referencing B but you could not do so.

Secondly by that same logic wholly within the deployment zone includes all-terrain features within the deployment zone so B never applies to any fortification.

I am likely wrong about this but, wasn't there a codicil in the BRB that said all BRB rules supersede non BRB book rules? For instance DS on turn 1? Or was that just 8th? Also, everyone points to "Specific trumps general" where was that written?

No, you're ignoring that anywhere includes the measurement restriction you're so hell bent on keeping

You can place it anywhere, including within 3", because it has been otherwise STATED

Anywhere states 3". It also states 4" and 6". That's how the word anywhere works

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's RAW for you.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I am likely wrong about this but, wasn't there a codicil in the BRB that said all BRB rules supersede non BRB book rules? For instance DS on turn 1? Or was that just 8th? Also, everyone points to "Specific trumps general" where was that written?

Specific trumps general was a 7th edition rule when codex overuled BRB

Now it refers to a general rule as in standard shooting rules that apply unless another rule (a specific one modifies it) (not a brb/codex thing) however this is colloquial for how things work rather than written in the rule book its just accepted that was otherwise specific rules don't do anything


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're ignoring that anywhere includes the measurement restriction you're so hell bent on keeping

You can place it anywhere, including within 3", because it has been otherwise STATED

Anywhere states 3". It also states 4" and 6". That's how the word anywhere works

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's RAW for you.

I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent

it doesn't state it doesnt so the 3" rule applies and modifies that rule

by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated or the rule applies to nothing

U02dah4 wrote:


I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent

it doesn't state it so the 3" rule applies

False, it says "Anywhere" which would overide not within 3"...

by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated

Sure, but if you don't deploy "wholey within the deployment zone" the game breaks.

The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:


I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent

it doesn't state it so the 3" rule applies

False, it says "Anywhere" which would overide not within 3"...

by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated

Sure, but if you don't deploy "wholey within the deployment zone" the game breaks.

The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.

It doesn't override it - anywhere does not name the restriction - which is a requirement of stating at best you have an implication from which you've derived an interpretation which is not enough

but as stated below it doesn't work because of the argument below meaning the restriction never does anything under your interpretation

And wholey within the deployment zone doesnt refer to a section of the battlefield?

U02dah4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:


I'm not ignoring it, anywhere includes the board 3" from terrain its just not relevent

it doesn't state it so the 3" rule applies

False, it says "Anywhere" which would overide not within 3"...

by your logic so does wholey within the deployment zone - that isn't considered stated

Sure, but if you don't deploy "wholey within the deployment zone" the game breaks.

The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.

It doesn't override it

You keep saying that without any proof. I have shown that "anywhere" means anywhere, and not anywhere except within 3" etc...

anywhere does not name the restriction - which is a requirement of stating at best you have an implication from you've derived an interpretation which is not enough

Except by virtue of saying anywhere it includes the 3" and does not need to mention the restriction specifically.

but as stated below it doesn't work because of the argument below meaning the restriction never does anything under your interpretation

False, there are restrictions that do things.

And wholey within the deployment zone doesnt refer to a section of the battlefield?

Not sure what you mean here.

1) your saying it overides it, you need to provide proof, you have provided none ergo my case that the proof does not excist is proven by its absence from your argument + i can read and their is no statement in that sentence. The only acceptable proof is a statement directly referring to the restriction being overuled - the word anywhere in response is proof you don't have proof as its not a statement.

2) it says you need to " state it " RAW - mentioning the restriction specifically is literally what stating means.

Note implying alluding to suggesting or being derived from or any synonym there of are not stateing

3/4) you say anywhere means anywhere on the battlefield - wholey within the deployment zone is the default definition of deployment and is also anywhere within an area of the battlefield

Given they both refer to an area of the battlefield with no restrictions in their own rules you are stating restrictions apply to one and not the other..... and you can't see the flaw in your logic

Either they apply to both and the 3" restriction does nothing ever or it applies to both their is no reason it should effects one and not the other

U02dah4 wrote:
1) your saying it overides it you need to provide proof you have provided none ergo my case is proven.

Except I have given proof. It is in the word "Anywhere" if you kinow what that word means, my case is proven. Your is not.

2) it says you need to " state it " RAW - mentioning the restriction specifically is literally what stating means

Except it is "otherwise stated". Anywhere states 1" 3". It also states 4" and 6". That's how the word anywhere works.

3/4) you say anywhere means anywhere on the battlefield - wholey within the deployment zone is the default definition of deployment and is also anywhere within an area of the battlefield

Given they move refer to an area of the battlefield with no restrictions in their own riles you are stating restrictions apply to one and not the other..... and you can't see the flaw in your logic

Again, because of the usage of the word "Anywhere" you could place it 1/2 off the battlefield, if doing so didn't break the game... But it breaks the game so you can not put it there.

Sorry I modified my answers while you were typing
1) as stated saying anywhere is proof you don't have proof its not a statement

2) anywhere does not state 3" that is an outright lie if it does provide the quote in which "anywhere" and 3" appear in the same rule... it doesnt state any of those things although you might derive them, if you need to derrive that is not stating -if you had proof you wouldnt need lie and pretend the rule uses words it doesn't.

3)So why doesn't that logic apply to wholey within the deployment zone - I notice you dodge the salient point or are you saying that under your interpretation none of those rules work but if you do those things it breaks the game. Thus proving my earlier point that of the two RAI interpretations one breaks the game and one doesn't.

U02dah4 wrote:
Sorry I modified my answers while you were typing
1) as stated saying anywhere is proof you don't have proof its not a statement

Then you clearly do not have any idea what "Anywhere" means.

U02dah4 wrote:
2) anywhere does not state 3" that is an outright lie

Except it does by virtue of saying "Anywhere"...

You can check any dictionary or thesaurus you like - under the definition or alternatives of "anywhere" you won't find 3"

But feel free to quote any dictionary you like to prove me wrong

You definitely won't find "ignoring the 3" restriction on terrain" which is what you actually need, you know something definitive and clear

Again you have to "state" that the restriction is ignored not derrive it or imply it

Google definition verb state

express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing

I also note that you ignored the point that proved your argument is game breaking using your own argument LOL

I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.

Yes I read it the same way

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.

Except that would over-ride "anywhere" in the rule.

The rules state "Unless otherwise stated". "Anywhere" is otherwise stated, so it over-rides the terrain rule.

So despite having proved it doesn't useing a dictionary and despite using your own argument to prove it breaks the game, which you acknowledged and chose not refute, your still flogging that dead horse.

It doesn't overide anywhere he's described exactly what it means and yes that not what you claim it means but he can read.

And no it doesn't as proved by you - anywhere is not otherwise stated and if it was it breaks the game! so we won't be using that interpretation we will be using the one that isn't game breaking.

U02dah4 wrote:
So despite having proved it doesn't useing a dictionary and despite using your own argument to prove it breaks the game, which you acknowledged and chose not refute, your still flogging that dead horse

Except you have not done any of that. It seems that you are the one "still flogging that dead horse"

It doesn't overide anywhere he's described exactly what it means and yes that not what you claim it means but he can read.

And no it doesn't as proved by you - anywhere is not otherwise stated and if it was it breaks the game! so we won't be using that interpretation we will be using the one that isn't game breaking.

again your argument is incorrect, since you clearly do not know what "Anywhere" means.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I read “set up anywhere” in this context as removing the restriction most units have of deploying in your own deployment zone only. That’s all it means. Other restrictions may apply, such as the “not within 3” of terrain”.

Except that would over-ride "anywhere" in the rule.

The rules state "Unless otherwise stated". "Anywhere" is otherwise stated, so it over-rides the terrain rule.

I’m not gonna play “argue against DeathReaper til thread lock”, I’ve got a busy day... I’ve told you how I would play the rules. You enjoy doing what you’re doing.

Yeah we are not got gonna change your mind as your not looking to honestly engage with the evidence - both sides of the argument have been throughly examined here - I'm sticking with the interpretation that doesn't break the game but you do you

U02dah4 wrote:
Yeah we are not got gonna change your mind as your not looking to honestly engage with the evidence - both sides of the argument have been throughly examined here - I'm sticking with the interpretation that doesn't break the game but you do you

Says the person that is ignoring what "Anywhere" means...

And my way doesn't break the game, yours breaks the "Anywhere" rule by restricting "Anywhere"...

As much as I respect the persistence of your argument predicated on Ignoratio Elenchi we are done.

U02dah4 wrote:
As much as I respect the persistence of your argument predicated on Ignoratio Elenchi we are done.

Except my argument is absolutely not predicated on Ignoratio Elenchi.

You need to acknowledge "Anywhere" means. But since you will not do so, we are done.

Acknowledged

adverb
in or to any place.

Or

pronoun
any place.

Thats it the whole definition. The definition of anywhere has no bearing on the argument and never did, hence Ignoratio Elenchi

The question was do you have a statement that the 3" restriction does not apply

State - Defined as verb - express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing

Anywhere is not a statement! it is not a written expression referring to a 3" restriction! That would require multiple words - in the context it refers to any place on the battlefield. It doesn't matter how many times you idiotically shout anywhere means anywhere all your doing is missing the point once more.

Anywhere is not and will never be a statement referring to a restriction it is one word.

U02dah4 wrote:
The definition of anywhere has no bearing on the argument and never did, hence Ignoratio Elenchi

This of course is 100% false

The question was do you have a statement that the 3" restriction does not apply

Yes, it is in the "Seeded Growths" rule on the Miasmic Malignifier dataslate. "...it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."

So it has to be on the battlefield, but it can be "anywhere" on the battlefield.

The "anywhere" in that rule over-rides the 3" restriction by virtue of the rule saying "anywhere on the battlefield".

Had it said [anywhere on the battlefield except within 3" of terrain] This wouldn't even be a discussion. But it does not say that.

Frankly I can't understand how you are droning on claiming that "anywhere on the battlefield" does not actually mean "anywhere on the battlefield"