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.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

zamnath wrote:
In that format the question has no direct bearing on the answer beyond providing the readers with an understanding of the incorrect rules interpretation that is being replaced.

Actually, this isn't true. This isn't in the amendments or errata sections, it's in the Q&A section. This means that the answer is irrelevant without the question. The answer doesn't apply to anything BUT the question being asked. If it was meant to reword ANY rules as written in the book, it would have been placed in a different section of the FAQ, outlining specifically what it intended to reword or amend.

The format of the Q&A for this question is clearly "Is X true?" "No, X is true." In other words, they are negating the first statement, which says that every enemy unit under the beam is able to Deny the Witch, and replacing it with the statement that the first unit effected (without any mention of enemies) is able to Deny the Witch. This wording is in conflict with the BRB no matter how you interpret its specifics because the BRB specifies that the enemy unit needs to be targeted and Beams do not target anything outside of a point. As this is the case, the BRB actually does not allow for Deny the Witch to be taken against a beam at all and the FAQ was clearly intended to institute a new rule providing the victims of a Beam with the opportunity to Deny the Witch. If this ruling were not new, there would be precedent for its interpretation in the BRB. There isn't. As a new rule, and one that is presented in a format (negation and replacement) that can only logically be read as standalone, we must take the rule itself (that the first unit effected gets to deny the witch) without the influence of the negated statement (and therefore the potential "contextual reference" to enemy units) and overwrite the original ruling of the BRB in this instance (that targeted enemy units get Deny the Witch, which would mean enemy units do not get to deny the witch at all against beams). It seems pretty clear to me.

Your trying to overstate the context of the question. The question specifically asked about enemy units. It does not ask or imply anything about friendly units under the beam. The answer therefore applies to enemy units.

Fragile wrote:
Your trying to overstate the context of the question. The question specifically asked about enemy units. It does not ask or imply anything about friendly units under the beam. The answer therefore applies to enemy units.

I have a feeling we'll end up going back and forth forever if we argue this, but I'll say it one last time for good measure: A statement being replaced does not have some magical ability to change the meaning of the statement that replaces it. Just because the incorrect "all enemy units" ruling is being used as an example of how not to treat Deny the Witch with beams, before stating the correct way to handle the issue, you do not suddenly have free reign to change the meaning of the correct way to handle the issue from "the first unit effected may elect to Deny the Witch" to "the first enemy unit effected may elect to Deny the Witch." The two statements are completely separate and their only relationship is that one is the wrong interpretation of a specific rule and the other one is the right interpretation. Your argument hinges on a context that doesn't exist. Rather ironically, you're trying to overstate the context of the question. I'm saying that RAW can only be based on the words contained in the correct rule.

If you'd like to argue that there is a greater relationship between the two parts of that FAQ question, feel free, but please don't do so by restating a point that I've already demonstrated to be untrue. Look at the FAQ section and consider its semantics, then demonstrate to me how my interpretation of the relationship between the incorrect ruling and the correct one is wrong. I don't believe it is, but perhaps I'm missing something you see and you haven't effectively communicated it yet. Why is it that you believe we can take a sentence that exists solely to be untrue and then use specific portions of it to create an implicit meaning contradictory to the explicit meaning of a sentence that is true?

Anyway, off my soap box. If you come up with a defense for your viewpoint, Fragile, I'll be happy to keep this conversation going with a rebuttal, concession, etc., but until you do I don't see much point in going back and forth.