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.

FlingitNow wrote: 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.

It's also not the argument. Nobody said that they did it because they were idiots.

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.

And again, not the actual argument.

This interpretation has just as much merit as the INAT FAQs "interpretation" of the rule.

I don't recall anyone saying that your interpretation lacked merit. I happen to agree with it.

The argument is about you claiming that it is RAI.



But you're clearly not interested in sensible discussion on this, and have made up your mind that your interpretation of the rule is the only possible version that the writer intended... so rather than attempt to continue a discussion with someone who is determined to twist things all out of proportion and original meaning, I think I'm done here.

wow... and i thought the poll about dark angels using new wargear had some biased poll answers but this one takes the cake. i'll vote in the new thread about the same thing.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

BOOM! Gwar got served!

Klawz wrote: BOOM! Gwar got served!

What :O

I've been reading those pages but no where does it say the only option is that the model is dead. It actually says it might be so badly wounded it can't fight any longer.
It says that on both page 6 (so badly hurt it can't fight) and 24 (knocked unconscious, too injured, incapacitated in some other way).

Wouldn't say he got served.....

SuperioR wrote:

Klawz wrote: BOOM! Gwar got served!

What :O

I've been reading those pages but no where does it say the only option is that the model is dead. It actually says it might be so badly wounded it can't fight any longer.
It says that on both page 6 (so badly hurt it can't fight) and 24 (knocked unconscious, too injured, incapacitated in some other way).

Wouldn't say he got served.....

Therefore, if "Dead" doesn't equal "lost all of its wounds," then the converse does not work, either.

FlingitNow wrote:How is it bias? I've put nothing in the polling question that is negative to either oppinion. Do you follow RAW and RAI or do you follow INAT?

You obviously are against RAW in this instance I presume?

Biased as hell. You're forcing the assumptions of RAW and RAI onto the person answering the question. Could just as easily make it

1) Agree with me, I'm right.
2) Disagree with me, admit your wrong, and don't know how to read rules.

No Bias? Funny angry man.