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.

Howdy guys!

I'm honestly surprised BCB hasn't picked up on this one yet.

Gorillaman's previous rule for Armor of Fate:

Armour of Fate: This model has a 3+ invulnerable save. The first time this model is destroyed, roll one D6 at the end of the phase. On a 4+ return this model to play with D6 wounds remaining, placing it as close as possible to its previous position and more than 1" away from any enemy models.

In the Ultramarines Supplement, it was updated to the following (because it refers to the second sentence, not the third ):

"Armour of Fate: This model has a 3+ invulnerable save. On a 4+, set this model back up on the battlefield as close as possible to where they were destroyed and not within Engagement Range of any enemy models, with D6 wounds remaining. On a 4+ return this model to play with D6 wounds remaining, placing it as close as possible to its previous position and more than 1" away from any enemy models."

Thus, Gorillaman is either only getting up on invulnerability save rolls of 4+ (which he succeeds, so he wouldn't need to get up), or there's no roll specified, so presumably ANY roll of 4+ gets Gorillaman back on his feet.

Whoops!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... Of course, it may mean that no matter how wounded Gorillaman is, if he rolls a 4+ on his invulnerable save, he has to set himself up (despite not being removed) with only 1d6 wounds remaining. Fascinating.

You're right, the Errata should change the third sentence, not the second.

Funny typo, but not a problem, as clearly they didnt mean for it to read how they adjusted it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Funny typo, but not a problem, as clearly they didnt mean for it to read how they adjusted it.

And like every other thread you derail talking about context, how do you know they "didn't mean" this one but "did mean" another?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Funny typo, but not a problem, as clearly they didnt mean for it to read how they adjusted it.

And like every other thread you derail talking about context, how do you know they "didn't mean" this one but "did mean" another?

It is not a derail to talk abour RAI...

Context is F**KING important.

You even said yourself that "the Errata should change the third sentence, not the second.".

This one makes no sense if you follow the RAW, so clealry it was not meant that way. Occam's razor and all that.

"It should" and "They meant to" are not synonyms.

A lot of things "make no sense" if you follow the RaW.

Both of you seem like you need to keep in mind Tenet 4.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

BCB is arguing RAW (which is, frankly, how I presented it, even if I did so Tongue-in-cheek). RAW may not make sense. It remains the RAW.

RAI is something none of us have direct access to, even though context clues point sufficiently strongly towards designer intent that any argument for why it wasn't intended is essentially the point of "but we don't know with 100% certainly", i.e. beginner's philosophy. That makes RAI inherently a HYWPI argument (edit) UNLESS you have a direct quote from the designers.

RAI/HYWPI is NOT, however, out of context for the YMDC boards, BCB, because otherwise the Tenets would distinguish between (allegedly appropriate) RAW points and (allegedly inappropriate) HYWPI points. The rules do not, thus neither should we.

C'mon, guys, play nice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"It should" and "They meant to" are not synonyms.

A lot of things "make no sense" if you follow the RaW.

The things that make no sense usually have a clear and discernible RAI. Like Assault weapons. Clearly they meant for them to be able to be used after advancing. but they didnt write the rules that way.

and clearly "They meant to" in this case.

If you cant even accept that fact, you are just in your own world.

The problem is DeathReaper, you constantly conflate your HWIPI answer as what the rules say, when that is provably false. If all you did was say "This is how I would play it", it would be fine. Instead you insist you are the arbiter of what is and isn't "meant" to be.

The RaW is clear, HYWPI or RaI is none of my business to determine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem is DeathReaper, you constantly conflate your HWIPI answer as what the rules say, when that is provably false. If all you did was say "This is how I would play it", it would be fine. Instead you insist you are the arbiter of what is and isn't "meant" to be.

The RaW is clear, HYWPI or RaI is none of my business to determine.

He didn't say that HERE, though. Everything he stated, initially and throughout, is a HYWPI argument. His initial statement implicitly assumes that the RAW has problematic/nonsensical results.

Read the arguments he makes, not the arguments he's made elsewhere. That's bad form. It's done often enough against you that you'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive about it at this point.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem is DeathReaper, you constantly conflate your HWIPI answer as what the rules say, when that is provably false.

this is 100% false. I never conflate HIWPI with actual RAW.

If all you did was say "This is how I would play it", it would be fine. Instead you insist you are the arbiter of what is and isn't "meant" to be.

False, i try to figure out the most likely RAI.

The RaW is clear, HYWPI or RaI is none of my business to determine.

If you do not want to let people know "HYWPI" thats fine. But we need to figure out RAI for rules like assault weapons that do not work.

Not sure there's much more to be said here. Yes, the RAW in this instance is broken, but it's a fairly obvious typo and the RAI seem quite clear.

For clarity, pointing out the context of a rule is not derailing a thread. Without context, a given piece of text is meaningless. Moving on.