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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Context can change the meaning of a sentence, but it does not seem to in this case.

I am glad we agree that context can change the meaning of a sentence. When you state, "it does not seem to" we arrive at our separate interpretations. As I seriously doubt either of us will sway the other on interpretations, and mine has already been stated, I think this has reach a finish, and I am going to step out of this thread. I enjoyed the debate.

Please, cite the context that would add the word "only" to that sentence. Or something to support your viewpoint. Otherwise you're literally adding words with no support and trolling me by saying you're arguing one thing, then arguing another, then changing your stance, and now I have no idea what you're trying to say.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite the context that would add the word "only" to that sentence. Or something to support your viewpoint. Otherwise you're literally adding words with no support and trolling me by saying you're arguing one thing, then arguing another, then changing your stance, and now I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Context does not add words. I am not going to explain to you how context works. You are, yet again, trying to change what I have said by restating it in a different way. You say you have no idea what Im trying to say, maybe that is because you are soo busy trying to make me say what you want me to be saying, that you don't actually get what I'm saying. So let me be clear, I am saying two things:

1: Your interpretation of that answer is not the only one possible, and not the one I agree with. I have already shown how and why. Your disagreement with my interpretation does not make it wrong, nor you right.
2: I am finished with this argument and will not post again here.

I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that point in particular. I'm just offering my opinion on whether maledictions should be included.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.

Since there's no rulebook definition of an attack (note the difference between that and Attacks the stat) you have to fall back on the dictionary definition.
Unless you can find a rules definition of an attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.

Since there's no rulebook definition of an attack (note the difference between that and Attacks the stat) you have to fall back on the dictionary definition.
Unless you can find a rules definition of an attack.

No, you don't automatically fall back on the dictionary, otherwise things like deployment could be considered an "attack". What I am saying is the following:
Is something bound by this restriction?:
Is it on the list?
Do its rules define it as an "attack"?
If yes to either of those, restriction applies.

But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

But the rules also do not say that is an exhaustive list of everything that is an attack.

You're using circular reasoning...

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
But the rules never define the word attack - so how is it defined?

That's my point. The rules don't define anything else specifically as an "attack", so nothing else is bound by that restriction other than the items on the list.

But the rules also do not say that is an exhaustive list of everything that is an attack.

You're using circular reasoning...

No I'm not. You cannot cite a rule saying anything else is a part of that list. Maybe in the next codex release, there will be something defined as an "attack", who knows? But as for now, that list IS exhaustive, although it wouldn't be if anything else fit the category of "attack".

And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

Which means the list isnt exhaustive....

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

So what does define the category of attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And what defines the category of attack?
"That list."
Why can nothing else be added?
"Because nothing else fits the definition!"

How is that not circular?

I did not say the bolded. I said that the list is a theoretically non-exhaustive list of things that ARE attacks. I did not say that the list was the only thing that could ever define an attack. If something else was defined as an attack, it would be bound by the restrictions in the list. Please make sure you understand what someone is saying before you refute something.

So what does define the category of attack?

If something were to have it, it would say something in its rules like "this is an attack..."
If you suggest anything else is an attack, then you are getting at intent or HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which means the list isnt exhaustive....

If you had read my post, you would know that I am not saying that it is exhaustive per se.

Exhaustive is a binary state when it comes to lists. It is exhaustive or it isnt.

So, is it exhaustive or not? One word answer is all thats needed.

Yes.
But that could change if something else qualified.
Asking for a one word answer to get the results you want by removing your opponent's context is not cool.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

You are correct. 'Is a malediction an attack?' is the only real question.

Tactical_Genius wrote:And before anyone brings up the definition of "attack":
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."
Taken from the tenets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I know cryhavok has left now but just gonna add my two cents:
I agree with cryhavok, but for a different reason.
I see that list an NOT exhaustive, although in this case it is.
(allow me to explain what I mean)
While the list itself would allow things in theory to be added to it, I can think of nothing else that is defined as an "attack" in either the BRB or the codices. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)

Which isn't my point.
My point is that if you classify a Malediction as an attack (a completely separate discussion) it would be restricted by that clause.
He said that wasn't true.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that point in particular. I'm just offering my opinion on whether maledictions should be included.

Though I tend towards the 'this not an attack because the BRB does not define it as an attack' side here it cannot be proven and is therefore only speculation. IMO there is no RAW answer to the question. There is not even a solid RAI due to poor wording and lack of defined parameters. The dictionary definition is to broad to say either so IMO it's impossible to decipher what they meant here... though I may try divining the answer but that may require a cat... and the cat is locked in Schrodinger's box.... along with the answer...

There are a lot of things the BRB does not define. Such as More, Same, and include.

There are some things in the BRB that we need to use the standard English definition of to make the game playable as the BRB does not define every word.

They define Attack, but not attack, so we have to fall back on the standard English definition of attack.

a Malediction most definitely fits the definition of attack...

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are a lot of things the BRB does not define. Such as More, Same, and include.

There are some things in the BRB that we need to use the standard English definition of to make the game playable as the BRB does not define every word.

They define Attack, but not attack, so we have to fall back on the standard English definition of attack.

a Malediction most definitely fits the definition of attack...

Permissive ruleset.
You cannot cite a rule saying a malediction is an attack.
RAW a malediction is not an attack.
And the dictionary definition isn't a good argument. Deployment fits the definition of an "attack", does that mean if I deploy against an army that contains FMC I am bound by that restriction?
My point is, as per the tenets, dictionary definitions are not enough proof of RAW unless it is abundantly clear what is meant. This is not abundantly clear, so, as per the tenets, please cite a rule that identifies a malediction as an attack, or concede.

Tactical_Genius, define More, Same, and include in the BRB.

If you can do that you have a point, but if you can not you have to realize that the BRB does not define every word contained therein.

Also "Deployment" most certainly does not fit the definition of "attack"

"Take aggressive action against a foe"

Wow, Tactical_Genius is right, technically deploying an army against your opponent is an aggressive action.

No, it isnt, as you have yet to take any action AGAINST the foe - all you have done is placed models on the board. "Action" is active, deployment is passive

Tactical - yet the list isnt exhaustive, because the list isnt written as exhaustive.

Define "The", using just 40k rules. If you cannot cite a rule showing what "the" means, you must concede.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt, as you have yet to take any action AGAINST the foe - all you have done is placed models on the board. "Action" is active, deployment is passive

Tactical - yet the list isnt exhaustive, because the list isnt written as exhaustive.

Define "The", using just 40k rules. If you cannot cite a rule showing what "the" means, you must concede.

Demonstrate categorically that deployment is passive, if you can't you must concede.

Wrong way round, actually

You have to prove it is an attack, by proving you are taking aggressive ACTION against a foe.

Do so or concede it is not an attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong way round, actually

You have to prove it is an attack, by proving you are taking aggressive ACTION against a foe.

Do so or concede it is not an attack.

No I don't, you are making the assertion of passivity I am making no assertion, ergo the burden of poof is on you.

I never asserted it was an attack, I have not made my position on whether or not it is an attack clear, thus have no point to concede, not having made one. Don't assume my stance.

No it isnt. I was responding to those claiming it is an attack, while offering no proof of such. I proved the opposite, using the language the game is written in.

I am stating it is not an attack, as there is no action performed against the enemy. There are actions performed, but they are not against an enemy. English tells us this, as there is no 40k definition for "action"

Thus demonstrated.

Do you not by the common English definition of deploy in context of a battle, deploy against a foe.

"And there, arrayed against us, stood a mighty host."

To quote, er, someone.