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.

HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

That would probably work also, now what if he flies off the table while falling back? Does he go into continuing reserves, or is he gone?

tgf wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
HIWPI: Pivot up to 90 degrees toward your table edge and move 3d6 in a straight line.

That would probably work also, now what if he flies off the table while falling back? Does he go into continuing reserves, or is he gone?

The rules for going off the board edge while swooping specifically state they go into ongoing reserves even if it wasn't deliberate, so I'd say they go into ongoing reserves.

Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

power last a turn ... then its fearless again. So it would auto regroup before it comes back.

 Tri wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Next question:

Would they automatically recover or will they still need to 'regroup?'

power last a turn ... then its fearless again. So it would auto regroup before it comes back.

That only applies if the FMC is fearless of course.

any non Fearless FMC's would need to test to regroup before moving normally.

How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

To the best of my knowledge...at the moment one - CSM Daemon Prince (with Wings).

The rulebook explicitly states you can't move units off the table intentionally but obviously this okay for flyers and FMC. Use a little common sense... It can go a long way.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Okay, first off, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Had a camping trip that ended up being cut short, so I'm back sooner than I thought. anyway:

I can not answer that with a yes or no answer, because it is not nearly that simple. Things rarely are. My answer to that depends on whether or not it "could" be read as either way, a possibility you have denied several times. So My answer is that I believe it can be read either way, and once you go there, you are discussing what they intended it to mean, a discussion that you have stated you are uninterested in. I have shown that a list such as that could be intended that way, even if it didn't use perfect syntax. As you and I both know GW doesn't have the best quality editors, an argument in this direction would also lead to a discussion about what the author intended.

Also as a note, if our little side discussion would be considered derailing the thread (i'm not sure about it myself), I would be happy to continue this in PMs, as I am finding the debate interesting.

 Happyjew wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How many non-Fearless/Daemonic Instability FMCs even exist?

To the best of my knowledge...at the moment one - CSM Daemon Prince (with Wings).

I just took a look at my digital CSM codex and it says 'Fearless' under the special rules section for the CSM Daemon Prince

Yes, not sure why you thought differently - it was fearless in the 4th eddition book as well.

Cryhavok - you didnt show that it made an exhaustive list, though. Strict reading shows it can be an inexhaustive list, which you denied was possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
which you denied was possible.

I did not deny that it was possible, In fact my last post stated my belief that it could be read both ways, depending on interpretation.

Except that you cannot read the list as exhaustive, as the list is written. Grammatically, following the rules of the language, the list was non-exhaustive.

You denied this was the case.

cryhavok wrote:
I have shown that a list such as that could be intended that way, even if it didn't use perfect syntax. As you and I both know GW doesn't have the best quality editors, an argument in this direction would also lead to a discussion about what the author intended.

And my point is that the intent isn't really relevant - the words as they're written are not exhaustive.

And you started out not addressing intent, rather you argued that the list was exhaustive RAW.

cryhavok wrote:The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

cryhavok wrote: Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

cryhavok wrote: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.

Are you now moving to a RAI argument?

Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

The third quote you had, I was in error when I stated, without qualification, that adding things would be making up rules. When I wrote it, I was assuming that not every exception would need to be stated, and as I said I was in error. It would have been more correct to have added the qualifications I later did (as seen in the fourth quote)

cryhavok wrote:
Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

... Which is exactly what I said. I said that if a malediction was an attack it would be included. You disagreed saying that I couldn't add to that list.

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

When I say one thing, and you disagree with it then and now agree with it it's pretty impossible to figure out what you're trying to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

Here, I've even quoted the post where you exactly claimed it was exhaustive by saying "Adding things to that list is making up rules"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that you cannot read the list as exhaustive, as the list is written. Grammatically, following the rules of the language, the list was non-exhaustive.

You denied this was the case.

If you want to go through the BRB and correct every grammatical/syntax error GW put in there and publish a new, correct one, I would find this a valid argument. Until that is the case though, it's not really something that would hold up in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Look at the last of those quotes. In it I give conditions for adding to the list:
Being a rulemaker
Having precedence (by this I mean having something that clearly shows it should be added to this list, for example: proof that a malediction is considered an attack by the rules would work)

... Which is exactly what I said. I said that if a malediction was an attack it would be included. You disagreed saying that I couldn't add to that list.

This means that my argument was not that it was exhaustive by RAW, as there was a way to add to it. You continue to infer things I did not say.

When I say one thing, and you disagree with it then and now agree with it it's pretty impossible to figure out what you're trying to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The answer goes broader than the question and says that any attacks that ... don't roll to hit cannot target them.

The answer also tells you what it includes, which is not maledictions.

It depends on if you classify a malediction as an attack.

Answers can be broader and refer to more circumstances than the initial question. The answer mentions 'attacks' which do not roll to hit. So as Rigeld2 says, it depends on if a Malediction is considered an attack.

Read the last line of the answer again. The one that starts with, "This includes weapons such as..." Then names a few weapons before continuing with, "...,and powers that follow the rules for maelstroms, novas, and beams." That line, in the answer tells you what it applies to, it does not include maledictions. Adding things to that list is making up rules, not interpretting RAW.

Here, I've even quoted the post where you exactly claimed it was exhaustive by saying "Adding things to that list is making up rules"

I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

Good job this isnt court. However you are clearly now making an intent argument, when initially you claimed a RAW argument. Given your own statements are themselves contradictory, figruing out what youre claiming is getting difficult.

Reread Rigelds quotes from you, in hopefully a clearer light, and you should be able to see how your position has altered.

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Good job this isnt court. However you are clearly now making an intent argument, when initially you claimed a RAW argument. Given your own statements are themselves contradictory, figruing out what youre claiming is getting difficult.

Reread Rigelds quotes from you, in hopefully a clearer light, and you should be able to see how your position has altered.

Yes, it altered between the third and fourth quotes, as I said. Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, not sure why you thought differently - it was fearless in the 4th eddition book as well.

Mostly because in my game against CSM the other night, the guy I was playing said it was not Fearless.

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

No I am not arguing intent. I have stated my belief on the intent, but I am not going to be arguing it until the how words can be used argument is finished. If you can admit that it can be read as either way, I would be satisfied with the result of that discussion and then I would go argue with someone else about intent (I say this as you have made it clear that you are uninterested in that argument)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

I steered it that way? Who was it that kept saying

"Includes this.." cannot mean...

This assertion made it about how words can be used.

Cryhavok - as written that list cannot be read as exhaustive

Once you admit that is the case, you can move on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - as written that list cannot be read as exhaustive

Once you admit that is the case, you can move on.

It can be. Is what you mean to say that it should not be?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
I edited my post above before you finished writing, I believe it answers this. I will go further to explain though, that I believed, and still do that that list was intended to define what an attack was for the purpose of that FAQ answer.

So you are arguing intent now.
Do you agree that RAW that answer is not exhaustive and that anything defined as an attack would be restricted?

edit: Bolded the word that shows you're arguing intent so I'm not accused of putting more words in your mouth.

No I am not arguing intent. I have stated my belief on the intent, but I am not going to be arguing it until the how words can be used argument is finished. If you can admit that it can be read as either way, I would be satisfied with the result of that discussion and then I would go argue with someone else about intent (I say this as you have made it clear that you are uninterested in that argument)

So you're not arguing intent, but you believe it was intended to be exhaustive.
Again, not putting words in your mouth.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Our arguement stopped being about RAW and started being on how you can use words, a long time ago.

No, it didn't. You have tried to steer it that way but I haven't.
Please don't put words in my mouth - I've never made an argument of intent.

I steered it that way? Who was it that kept saying

"Includes this.." cannot mean...

This assertion made it about how words can be used.

And then you, again, brought in intent saying that they "intended" only to be used. In your emergency door example the intent was obvious. You attempted to use that to say that all examples must be that way - which is false.

"This includes" is by definition non-exhaustive. If you add additional words like "only" in there, then it's an exhaustive list. Your assumption adds words. Mine does not. Therefore mine is the way it's written.

No, not at all.

As written that list is not an exhaustive list. It just isnt.

No matter your opinion otherwise, the actual language used to write the sentence states otherwise.

Arguing is a verb, an action. I am not actively arguing about intent. Stating what I believe an intent was, is not arguing. So no I am not arguing intent, yet.

You are correct when you say, "this includes..." Does not make the list exclusive. You are incorrect when you say it can not be read to be exhaustive. Saying that is claiming that context can not make it. Context can make lots of things happen. For example if you read that list to be defining what an attack is in that FAQ (something that context does allow), then that list would be just as exhaustive as the dictionary entry for a word (an exhaustive list of meanings that does not conform to the belief that it must be specified as "only" in order to be so).

cryhavok wrote:
Arguing is a verb, an action. I am not actively arguing about intent. Stating what I believe an intent was, is not arguing. So no I am not arguing intent, yet.

You are correct when you say, "this includes..." Does not make the list exclusive. You are incorrect when you say it can not be read to be exhaustive. Saying that is claiming that context can not make it. Context can make lots of things happen. For example if you read that list to be defining what an attack is in that FAQ (something that context does allow), then that list would be just as exhaustive as the dictionary entry for a word (an exhaustive list of meanings that does not conform to the belief that it must be specified as "only" in order to be so).

Does a dictionary definition "include" the list? Or does it simply state a list?

Context can change the meaning of a sentence, but it does not seem to in this case.
Reading "This includes..." as exhaustive is simply misunderstanding the language, or making assumptions about words that simply aren't there. Your emergency door example earlier was a good example of the latter.