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.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up. I am not the one pretending here. The rules are not, this, this, this, and whatever else you decide gets added to it. It is just this, this, and this. GW does not need to state that you can't add things, because no one but them is allowed to anyway.

So your assertion is that "This includes" is an exhaustive list?

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"This includes" does not mean "What follows is an exhaustive list".

In fact, it means the opposite.

When an answer tells you what is included in it's ruling, adding other things, without precedent, is still making up rules. Unless you are GW or you can cite some precedent to add to that list, then adding to it is pretty much the opposite of raw.

If you define a malediction as an attack you're adding nothing to the list.
The answer does not give you an exhaustive list. Stop pretending it does.

If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up. I am not the one pretending here. The rules are not, this, this, this, and whatever else you decide gets added to it. It is just this, this, and this. GW does not need to state that you can't add things, because no one but them is allowed to anyway.

So your assertion is that "This includes" is an exhaustive list?

No, that is you're inferance. My assertion is that you can not just decide to apply rules to things they do not refer too.

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw? You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

cryhavok wrote:
If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up.

Actually no, the BRB does not define attack. It does define Attack, but that is something totally different.

The BRB does not define every word in the BRB, so we have to use the dictionary definition of attack.

Maledictions fit the dictionary definition of attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
If you are defining a malediction as an attack you are making things up.

Actually no, the BRB does not define attack. It does define Attack, but that is something totally different.

The BRB does not define every word in the BRB, so we have to use the dictionary definition of attack.

Maledictions fit the dictionary definition of attack.

So does deployment, and many other things. Everything in the BRB that is an attack, is stated to be so.

Edit: multiple definitions, and context muddy the possibility of actually coming to an agreement on the definition of any word. I do not believe a malediction is intended to be an attack as far as the rules are concerned. I also don't think either of us will sway the other on which context/definition should be used, so I'm not getting any further into the is a malediction an attack arguement. I'll stick to the other arguement about wheather or not you are allowed to add to the things GW puts out and still call it RAW, that I was discussing with the other guy.

cryhavok wrote:
No, that is you're inferance. My assertion is that you can not just decide to apply rules to things they do not refer too.

I'm not.

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ.
The FAQ does refer to attacks and therefore anything that is an attack that does not roll to hit cannot target a Flyer.

I agree with cryhavok, a malediction does not fit the defination of attack as it relates to 40k. Casting a malediction or blessing both do not cause hits and are not subject to the faq pertaining to flyer hard to hit rules.

Note that the Hard to Hit FAQ has nothing to do with causing hits.

Well, not just causing hits.

rigeld2 wrote:

You still haven't even shown how a malediction is an attack by RAW, muchless how you can apply rules to maledictions that don't actually refer to them.

I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ. The FAQ does refer to attacks and therefore anything that is an attack that does not roll to hit cannot target a Flyer.

So if this is the case, RAW does not cover it at all, and we are down to interpretations of intent... a thing that can't be proven either way. Their intent as to what qualifies as an attack, as far as this ruling goes, could be argued to be the list they provided of what the ruling applies to. It could also be defined as many other things.

Here is dictionary.com's definitions:

at·tack
[uh-tak] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.

If you apply every definition of attack you could to that ruling, the effect would be, nothing can effect a swooping FMC unless it has an attack roll. Personally, I don't think that is what is intended.

So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

You are claiming I am saying things I am not.

Also, do you or do you not agree that we are in the realm on interpretation now?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the answer is yes, you think that "This includes" is an exhaustive list.

When its the exact opposite.

You are claiming I am saying things I am not.

It's either an exhaustive list or its not. You're arguing against it including things not explicitly listed, meaning you think it is an exhaustive list.

Also, do you or do you not agree that we are in the realm on interpretation now?

There's 2 points here - 1) Are Maledictions "attacks" with regards to the HtH FAQ. 2) Is the list of things in the FAQ exhaustive or not.

I have no opinion on #1. #2 I'm not arguing intent - rather its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

To support my belief that not everything that could be defined as an attack, should be defined as such for rules purposes, I would point out the FAQ that says vector strikes can hit swooping FMCs. It is a special ability that causes hits automatically without rolling to hit. It was ruled to be able to be used on other FMCs. It could easily be defined as an attack. You know what it is not? It is not one of the things the FAQ mentions specifically, that could not be used against FMCs.

Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

rigeld2 wrote:

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

If you can not add things to RAW, any list that is RAW can not be added to. You yourself say that you can not add to raw. Can a list that you can not add to be anything other than exhaustive?

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

This statement is wrong. Two words in a sentence can be brought to mean almost anything. To say it "cannot" mean something is false.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

Only your word says it is an exception. Mine says it is precedent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:I haven't said that a Malediction is an attack. I said that if you consider it an attack it would be restricted by the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote: I'm not arguing intent

When you say "If you consider" it strongly suggests you are arguing intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

To return your question though: so your assertion is that you are allowed to make up things and add it to raw?

No, and I haven't done so. At all.

If you can not add things to RAW, any list that is RAW can not be added to. You yourself say that you can not add to raw. Can a list that you can not add to be anything other than exhaustive?

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

rigeld2 wrote:
its a fact that "This includes" cannot be an exhaustive list, by definition.

This statement is wrong. Two words in a sentence can be brought to mean almost anything. To say it "cannot" mean something is false.

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, the Vector Strike ruling is an exception. That would be a rules change.

Only your word says it is an exception. Mine says it is precedent.

Precedent for what?
For GW to make other exceptions? Yes, agreed, GW can change whatever rules they want.
And it's actually a clarification (my bad) as Vector Strike gives permission to target a Flyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
When you say "If you consider" it strongly suggests you are arguing intent.

You misinterpreted then. I don't care if a Malediction is an attack or not RAW and I'm not arguing that point at all.

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

Proper syntax for that sentence would include the word "Only" or some other limiter.
Does the FAQ include a word like that or are you misrepresenting the argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

See the last bit of my post that got added before you finished writing.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.
If you're not arguing that the list is exhaustive, what are you arguing? It can't be kinda-sorta exhaustive; it either is or it isn't. Which is it?

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, show me how "This includes" can mean an exhaustive list. Ill wait.

See the last bit of my post that got added before you finished writing.

Back at ya. Sentence structure is important.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

Proper syntax for that sentence would include the word "Only" or some other limiter.
Does the FAQ include a word like that or are you misrepresenting the argument?

I am not misrepresenting the argument. This example is a list presented the same way the one in the FAQ is. I did not put the word only in there, just as it is not in the FAQ. I have seen signs like that posted. Proper syntax or not, would you be allowed to go through the door in that situation? You have not answered that.

BTW proper syntax does not require the word only in that sentence, unless you are assuming that only is meant, something you say

cannot

be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you want to get into what is required by proper sytax, you are going to have to get on GW editor's case there, as they have failed, so miserably it is pathetic, to use proper syntax in most of their products.

As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.

I am arguing exactly what i mean to say. Changing the words, changes the meaning. You are the one arguing syntax now, so you should be familiar with this concept. i suspect you are, and I suspect you have a motive behind trying to change what i am saying to something different, but similar. If I didn't post it, I didn't mean it, and i didn't intend to say it. That will not change, so anytime you get the urge to say, "So you are saying X", just copy paste the last sentence right underneath it for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

So we can talk about intent now?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not adding to the list. Thank you for admitting you're arguing for it to be exhaustive.

Are any of your arguments EVER made without trying to tell the person you are arguing with what they are saying? Let me be clear: You do not speak for me. I did not say this. You inferred this.

One thing that's important in a discussion is to be clear about what each side is arguing.

I am arguing exactly what i mean to say. Changing the words, changes the meaning. You are the one arguing syntax now, so you should be familiar with this concept. i suspect you are, and I suspect you have a motive behind trying to change what i am saying to something different, but similar. If I didn't post it, I didn't mean it, and i didn't intend to say it. That will not change, so anytime you get the urge to say, "So you are saying X", just copy paste the last sentence right underneath it for me.

Simple question, please just a one word answer since that's literally all it takes:
Is the list exhaustive as written or not?

rigeld2 wrote:
As worded there is nothing prohibiting me from going through the door. The intent is pretty clear, however, so I wouldn't do it.

That does not mean "This includes" is exhaustive in that situation - it means that someone needs to learn English better.

And yes, GWs editors have failed miserably. I think that the intent in this case is far, FAR less obvious so I would hesitate to insert the word "only" into the FAQ.

So we can talk about intent now?

I've never forbidden it, I'm just not interested in it.

The problem is that there are two, nested lists.

This includes {weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for [maelstroms, beams, and
novas.]}

While the outer list (denoted above with braces {}), is most certainly not exhaustive due to using "This includes", there's no indication that the inner list regarding Psychic Powers ([] above) is anything but exhaustive.

Actually chrysis, its much simpler than that. Are maledictions to be considered an attack?

The rest of rigeld2 and cryhavoks discussion really isn't material. Personally, I don't consider them an attack and the fmc needs to fall back. 3d6 seems appropriate.

You know, I just thought of another funny question relating to this. If a swooping FMC happens to fall back to the board edge, will it enter ongoing reserves or count as destroyed?

I not sure but he might actually go into ongoing reserves.

I think the orc truck rule was when it wasn't size restricted so you could make a ramshackle orc truck out of a whole bunch of different trucks and assault out it from your deploy zone since it stretched across the board.

It's quite likely that a Flying Monstrous Creature will leave the board whilst Swooping. Indeed it can, unlike other units, deliberately do so. tf this happens, whether deliberate or not, the unit is said to have left combat airspace - it then enters Ongoing Reserves

I'd say that's a pretty strong argument for it entering Ongoing Reserves if it falls back off the board edge.

Also, since the Swooping rules do say "moves exactly like a Jump Monstrous Creature" I'd say you can force it to fall back, the question now is: how far are you allowed to pivot?

Also, rigeld2, they're not saying it's an exhaustive list, and even if they were, "it's not an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions are covered" is equally as invalid an argument as "it is an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions aren't covered". Well actually that's not entirely true, the second one would be valid if it were an exhaustive list, while the first line of reasoning is invalid either way.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"it's not an exhaustive list and therefore maledictions can be covered"

Fixed that for you with the point I'm actually making.

cryhavok wrote:
Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

You are a member of the National Guard, having been mobilized in response to some natural disaster (tornado, hurricane, etc) are you allowed to go through the door?

 undertow wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Sign over door says "Emergency Personnel" In small text underneath it says, "this includes firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. Trespassers will be executed on sight."
You are a shoe shine boy. Are you allowed to go through the door?

You are a member of the National Guard, having been mobilized in response to some natural disaster (tornado, hurricane, etc) are you allowed to go through the door?

No, and thats why you throw a flash bang in first and come out shooting. (or is that just counter strike)


Look rules don't cover this. Stop fussing over if you can hit it. A gliding model is perfectly acceptable as a target but still does not have permission to fallback. Even if it can fallback there's the question of what happens at the board edge is it destroy and/or placed in reserve.

There is no RAW here ... at the moment the best we can do is discussed how we think it should be played.

I still say FMC that are swooping don't fall back based on the flavor and rules regarding normal movement for them. They fail a ld test and stay put. Next turn they need to test to regroup, and would become gliding based on the regroup roll. Its a rare occurance this doesn't break the game an essentially takes the FMC out of play aside from shooting in its next turn.