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.

 Loopy wrote:
This is kind of like the whole "jet packs move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase" thing. Sure, you could say that means that you can only move your Jet Pack unit 6" regardless of the fact they just told you that you could move 2d6", but nobody's going to do that because that's stupid. This is also stupid. An amusing conversation to have, but kind of like boobs on a bull... rather pointless.

Yeah because the intent here is exactly as clear as the Swarm ID rule.
Oh, wait.

Sorry about my outburst a few days ago.. I was drunk and I find some of the rules interpretations insane on dakka. It almost seems folks are trolling. I find the rules over all better written than they were in 3rd edition(last set I.played before 6th)

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

So, the rules must be taken as a whole?!?! Well, that makes sense. It made sense when I postulated that a while back.

The FAQ provides exception for the sub-heading "Out of Sight" as a whole. The remainder of the rule set is still applicable as no other sub-sets are mentioned.

Wow, way to wilfully misrepresent someones argument. Impressively dishonest way to argue.

Are you NOT arguing RAW? THen follow the tenets of the forum. You are aware of them I assume?

Out of Sight does 2 things. Find permission to ignore the second item. Page and paragraph.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
This is kind of like the whole "jet packs move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase" thing. Sure, you could say that means that you can only move your Jet Pack unit 6" regardless of the fact they just told you that you could move 2d6", but nobody's going to do that because that's stupid. This is also stupid. An amusing conversation to have, but kind of like boobs on a bull... rather pointless.

Yeah because the intent here is exactly as clear as the Swarm ID rule.
Oh, wait.

I think the intent IS clear. Do you really think the intent is that the same models that can be wounded by an errant blast when one guy is poking his head out CAN'T be wounded when that one guy is hidden?

Does the missile become more EAGER when it sees that guy?

Do you think the intent of the OoRange change is that a bolter becomes MORE eager (capable) of killing models at 24.1"+ when there is a missile launcher in theunit than when there isnt?

One reason why "intent" argumetns *really* struggle

No, I do not. I think that interpretation is a mistake as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process,they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

Far from conceding I was attempting to offer an out, a chance for both sides to concede that this is a case where strict RAW doesn't work. Since you've decided to argue it to the bone here we go.

Bolded your quote for emphasis - If we take Allocate Wounds and Removing Casualties as a whole and the FAQ specifically allows for allocation to units and models that are out of sight how is this not permission to ignore Out of Sight?

Don't like that logic here's another

Permission to ignore Out of Site comes from the BRB FAQ "... and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

"It" refers to the "target unit", so replacing the pronoun we get "... and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if (target unit) is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

Permission doesn't get more specific than that. Now I know the next point is why doesn't "it" refer to the "closest model", here's the rub it can. English is an ambiguous language and in this sentence you cannot determine what "it" references without context and inference. Inference implies RAI and not RAW.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
This is kind of like the whole "jet packs move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase" thing. Sure, you could say that means that you can only move your Jet Pack unit 6" regardless of the fact they just told you that you could move 2d6", but nobody's going to do that because that's stupid. This is also stupid. An amusing conversation to have, but kind of like boobs on a bull... rather pointless.

Yeah because the intent here is exactly as clear as the Swarm ID rule.
Oh, wait.

I think the intent IS clear. Do you really think the intent is that the same models that can be wounded by an errant blast when one guy is poking his head out CAN'T be wounded when that one guy is hidden?

Does the missile become more EAGER when it sees that guy?

Yes, I think that it is possible that's what they intend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:
No, I do not. I think that interpretation is a mistake as well.

So what is the "correct" interpretation, according to Loopy? What mystical visions do you have that gives you some different way of reading the Out of Range FAQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
Bolded your quote for emphasis - If we take Allocate Wounds and Removing Casualties as a whole and the FAQ specifically allows for allocation to units and models that are out of sight how is this not permission to ignore Out of Sight?

Because you are absolutely allowed to allocate to models that are out of sight. I've never argued that you cannot.
That is not the only rule under the Out of Sight heading. You keep ignoring that. You keep asserting that because you ignore one rule then you must be able to ignore anything else that could possibly put a limit on that.
Meaning you'd argue that PotMS can ignore LoS and Range restrictions as well.

Permission to ignore Out of Site comes from the BRB FAQ "... and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

"It" refers to the "target unit", so replacing the pronoun we get "... and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if (target unit) is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

Permission doesn't get more specific than that. Now I know the next point is why doesn't "it" refer to the "closest model", here's the rub it can. English is an ambiguous language and in this sentence you cannot determine what "it" references without context and inference. Inference implies RAI and not RAW.

No, "it" refers to the closest model. "can be allocated to <the closest model in the target unit> even if <the closest model in the target unit> is out of sight". In this case English isn't ambiguous.
And no - context is not an Intent argument.

 Loopy wrote:
No, I do not. I think that interpretation is a mistake as well.

Then how else could it possibly read? What do you THINK or BELIEVE they meant, when what they wrote was actually remarkably clear: you can remove casualties in a unit up to the range of the longest firing weapon in the unit.

WHere is your "intent" argument (presumably) coming from?

Andy - you are mixing up the proper pphrase "Out of Sight" with a general phrase "out of sight". "Out of Sight" is the name given to a set of rules that governs allocation and wound pools. "out of sight" is not the same

It is the difference between them typing "Heavy", a defined term in 40k with fixed meaning, and "heavy", which is a general verb.

So again, strict RAW, you cannot ignore the "empty wound pool" becaue you are not told to ignore "Out of SIght" (the rule), you are told instead what to do if the target unit is out of sight (the general term)

This appears to be where idolator is also getting mixed up.

rigeld2 wrote:
So what is the "correct" interpretation, according to Loopy? What mystical visions do you have that gives you some different way of reading the Out of Range FAQ?

There is no interpretation. It's a clear contradiction. Trying to allow the FAQ and out of range to live in the same universe without further clarification is a mistake. Best to ignore the FAQ. That's what my game groups and bi- monthly tourney have decided to do since that unfortunate FAQ dropped.

Yes, and as it is a contradiction the FAQ wins out.


The rules for OoRange have changed, from being in range of one model means you can hurt any model in the unit, to the range of the weapons being used limiting the furthest model that can be hurt.

If you want to ignore the rules, that is ok, just be aware it is most definitely a house rule

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what is the "correct" interpretation, according to Loopy? What mystical visions do you have that gives you some different way of reading the Out of Range FAQ?

There is no interpretation. It's a clear contradiction. Trying to allow the FAQ and out of range to live in the same universe without further clarification is a mistake. Best to ignore the FAQ. That's what my game groups and bi- monthly tourney have decided to do since that unfortunate FAQ dropped.

Right, so since it doesn't agree with your "world view" it cannot be correct and you've house ruled it.
No problem, but that has nothing to do with what GW intended or how the rules actually work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and as it is a contradiction the FAQ wins out.


The rules for OoRange have changed, from being in range of one model means you can hurt any model in the unit, to the range of the weapons being used limiting the furthest model that can be hurt.

If you want to ignore the rules, that is ok, just be aware it is most definitely a house rule

I'm willing to concede that ignoring the FAQ is a house rule, but to be honest, the logical legerdemain required to draw the community's current conclusion is... Agile to say the least. But I fear we have strayed off topic.

What I'm getting at is the reasonable thing for TOs to do, in my opinion, is to allow hidden units to have models removed. This is how most people will interpret it out of the gate and what most players will expect. Most people don't think in the loops required to even notice this odd little quirk.

It's not really a loop though - on the contrary, you have to make assumptions about intent and what they meant to say to remove models from invisible units.

I'm not trying to say I'm a brilliant person and this is an edge case in how English and the rules come together. It's rather straightforward - nothing says to ignore the "empty the wound pool" rule and so you don't. In a game or with my TO I'll bring it up once and never again.

I'm genuinely surprised anyone would consider it reasonable to play it like this.

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and as it is a contradiction the FAQ wins out.


The rules for OoRange have changed, from being in range of one model means you can hurt any model in the unit, to the range of the weapons being used limiting the furthest model that can be hurt.

If you want to ignore the rules, that is ok, just be aware it is most definitely a house rule

I'm willing to concede that ignoring the FAQ is a house rule, but to be honest, the logical legerdemain required to draw the community's current conclusion is... Agile to say the least. But I fear we have strayed off topic.

It really isnt agile, or long winded, or any other way of you attempting to claim it is an odd interpretation - the rules in the FAQ for out of range are 100% unambiguous. You cannot point to ambiguity, and as there is a direct contradiction to what was printed in the rule book the FAQ wins out.

What I'm getting at is the reasonable thing for TOs to do, in my opinion, is to allow hidden units to have models removed. This is how most people will interpret it out of the gate and what most players will expect. Most people don't think in the loops required to even notice this odd little quirk.

Here again the argument (no logical legerdemain required) is rather simple: find the rule that states you do not empty the wound pool

If you cannot do so, then there is no contradiction and you still empty the wound pool. If you can, page and graph.
me
It is an incredibly simple, straightforward argument that has no "intent" corruption to it, unlike yours. You are arguing "intent", in a game which is notorious for that concept being nebulous.

Rig I'm not going to bother quoting you at thos point because you've ceased to debate in good faith. Your PotMS argument is merely an attempt to cloud the issue because your entire defense has been reduced to "But the second sentence isn't specifically cited." Actually you know what your PotMS point is very valid. PotMS allows the vehicle to ignore the rules ubder the headwr Choosing A Target pg12 no more no less. Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight. PotMS does not have to cite Choose A Target nor does Blast have to specify Out of Sight.

So page and graph that shows PotMS references a specific header, hint it doesn't and even includes a similar phrase to Blast:
PotMS- "... subject to the rulea for normal shooting"
Blast- "... as for a normal shooting attack."

I see little room for you to argue without conceding that by your stance there are no exceptions to the basic rules in the USRs because they do not cite page/graph or sections by name.

andystache wrote:
Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight.

That's a lie. Flat out. You've failed at every point to cite that permission - only to indicate that it's inferred by permission to allocate.
Unfortunately for your position, allocation is not the only thing the Out of Sight rule refers to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
I see little room for you to argue without conceding that by your stance there are no exceptions to the basic rules in the USRs because they do not cite page/graph or sections by name.

They don't have to. They just have to generate a conflict. The blast rules do not conflict with the second sentence of OoS.

nosferatu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

So, the rules must be taken as a whole?!?! Well, that makes sense. It made sense when I postulated that a while back.

The FAQ provides exception for the sub-heading "Out of Sight" as a whole. The remainder of the rule set is still applicable as no other sub-sets are mentioned.

Wow, way to wilfully misrepresent someones argument. Impressively dishonest way to argue.

Are you NOT arguing RAW? THen follow the tenets of the forum. You are aware of them I assume?

Out of Sight does 2 things. Find permission to ignore the second item. Page and paragraph.

There is no misrepresentation here, it's not as though I selcetively edited what he wrote to deceptively connect his first and secong statement while removing the rest of his post or anything. Because who would do that???

He made a statement very similar to my own. He claimed that rules must be taken as a whole. A statement that I had made earlier and I pointed that out.

He also made the odd statement that allocating wounds and removing casualties isnt a step by step process, which is incorrect. You have to allocate wounds before models can be removed. Otherwise I would be able to remove models that didn't already have wounds allocated. I didn't address that however as I understood his intent, something that, apparently, is nigh on impossible to do. (according to some)

I have been clear that WE are not arguing RAW and have not been for some time. I'll find my post expressing this after I'm done with this post. If you missed it.
I'll restate it here just in case someone feverishly posts before I can get the edit in.

This is an RAI argument, by all sides. It is not possible to argue the RAW for allocating wounds to units that are not the declared target unit. As there are no rules for doing so and, as it has been pointed out, "there's no rule saying that I can't" is not a valid argument.

Are you maintaining that your argument is strictly RAW?

I'll reiterate, Out of Sight does not have two parts. It is a single rule consisting of two sentences. While Allocation of wounds is indeed a multipart rule, with separate headers and independent bullet points, Out of Sight (one of the separated parts of wound allocation) has no such divisions and an exeption to a portion of the subset is an exemption from its entirely.

I'll ask again, because I want to make sure that we are discussing the same thing here. I thought that we were, but now I'm less than sure.

NOSFERATU, what is your argument? Are you claiming that your argument is a Rules As Written argument?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - not one part of your "rebuttal" (to be kind) contained any rules text, or actually even attempted to refute the argument.

Any chance you could refute it? Rules override / replace when they conflict. Please find the conflict. Page and graph will suffice.

What is the argument? Other than,"You are wrong?"

I've been quite clear that a holistic approach must be made, especialy in this case, as there are many aspects of the rules that interact with one another. Hinging an argument on the wording used in half of a statement while ignoring the greater context is no way to discuss anything.

All arguments are moot at this point however as Andystache made the definitive RAW argument with his post. There can be no denying what is written.

Now, since there are no rules for allocating wounds to any unit other than the target unit and target unit is clearly defined on pages 12 and 15 any argument made on how to allocate wounds to a unit other than a target unit is RAI. Any attempt to keep this a strict RAW doesn't even get off the ground.

It's rather easy to maintain an argument when someone doesn't state their position or answer questions regarding their reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

Here it is again in case it was missed. The moment that it was accepted that the unit hit by a blast template was to be considered a "target unit" the entire discussion became RAI.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight.

That's a lie. Flat out. You've failed at every point to cite that permission - only to indicate that it's inferred by permission to allocate.
Unfortunately for your position, allocation is not the only thing the Out of Sight rule refers to.


.

I think the word you were looking for there was "wrong". Use of the word "lie" is a bit inflamatory.

Although, technicaly, any statement that a person finds inaccurate can be called a lie, I don't feel that it is appropriate language to use in this forum. Otherwide any time someone is wrong, they could be called a liar.


Edit: I edited the crap out of this thing because the multiquote made it hard to read and I had to make sure that the right people were attributed the appropriate posts. The preview function doesn't work on my computer for some reason.

 Idolator wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight.

That's a lie. Flat out. You've failed at every point to cite that permission - only to indicate that it's inferred by permission to allocate.
Unfortunately for your position, allocation is not the only thing the Out of Sight rule refers to.


.

I think the word you were looking for there was "wrong". Use of the word "lie" is a bit inflamatory.

Although, technicaly, any statement that a person finds inaccurate can be called a lie, I don't feel that it is appropriate language to use in this forum. Otherwide any time someone is wrong, they could be called a liar.


Edit: I edited the crap out of this thing because the multiquote made it hard to read and I had to make sure that the right people were attributed the appropriate posts. The preview function doesn't work on my computer for some reason.

Heh.. Yeah there are a couple of people here that like to throw around the "lie" accusation quite a bit when they have run out of other points to make. Usually it is in conjunction with an attempt to deflect from the real point being made...

I'm not saying I agree with your points or theirs, but I've noticed exactly what you have noticed in this regard... It should probably be reported (I'll let andystache decide since it was directed at him) since it is a form of trolling and definitely violates the tenets of the forums...

Edit for clarity, spelling

Idolator - stop with the snide insults, and try to argue honestly. Or at least avoid selectively editing yoru own posts to totally alter the meaning, and who was attributed and quoted. That is also misrepresentation.

You deliberately misrepresented what was contextually clearly meant by "whole", and tried to claim it supported your argument. Which it does not.

Out of Sight is a defined term in 40k, consisting of 2 rules. You have permission to ignore one rule, but not the other.

You also still havent worked out, despite Rig and my attempts to illuminate you, that "target unit" is actually irrelevant, yet you keep shaking it about like it actually matters, a bit like a dog and a chew toy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - stop with the snide insults, and try to argue honestly. Or at least avoid selectively editing yoru own posts to totally alter the meaning, and who was attributed and quoted. That is also misrepresentation.

You deliberately misrepresented what was contextually clearly meant by "whole", and tried to claim it supported your argument. Which it does not.

Out of Sight is a defined term in 40k, consisting of 2 rules. You have permission to ignore one rule, but not the other.

You also still havent worked out, despite Rig and my attempts to illuminate you, that "target unit" is actually irrelevant, yet you keep shaking it about like it actually matters, a bit like a dog and a chew toy.

Maybe a third party could weigh in on that. The edits were to make sure that the proper people got the right quote attributed to them because when I made the multiqoute it originaly attributed the posts to the next person in line, not the original poster. I did not edit for content as could be checked by reviewing the original post that I quoted. I'll quote both my edited post and the original for comparison.

I did not misrepresent anything. And never claimed that he supported my argument. I did however agree that rules need to be taken as a whole. In that regard, I was agreeing with him!

Out of Sight is a single rule consisting of two sentences, many words and puctuation. There is onlu ONE out of sight subset rule in the allocation rule set.

Target Unit is not irrelevant. It determines if we are discussing RAI or RAW. If we are discussing allocation of wounds to any unit other than the target unit, then we are discussing RAI.

I don't believe that I made any snide insults. Please point them out to me and I will address them and appologize if needed. Comparing a man to a dog, however, is a direct insult.

I will point out that I still do not know what your position is on the situation. Other than the fact that you think the single paragraph in a single entry under a single heading is two separate things.

Please, What is your position on allocating wounds to units, that are out of LoS, hit by a blast template, . Is your argument, RAI or is it RAW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

So, the rules must be taken as a whole?!?! Well, that makes sense. It made sense when I postulated that a while back.

The FAQ provides exception for the sub-heading "Out of Sight" as a whole. The remainder of the rule set is still applicable as no other sub-sets are mentioned.

Wow, way to wilfully misrepresent someones argument. Impressively dishonest way to argue.

Are you NOT arguing RAW? THen follow the tenets of the forum. You are aware of them I assume?

Out of Sight does 2 things. Find permission to ignore the second item. Page and paragraph.

EDIT: I just noticed that you accused me of altering my posts to change their meaning. Do you have any proof of this? Because that is mighty bold accusation.

Anyway, as you can see. The qoutes are accurately attributed to the right people, and I didn't edit it after someone else posted.

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

So, the rules must be taken as a whole?!?! Well, that makes sense. It made sense when I postulated that a while back.

The FAQ provides exception for the sub-heading "Out of Sight" as a whole. The remainder of the rule set is still applicable as no other sub-sets are mentioned.

Wow, way to wilfully misrepresent someones argument. Impressively dishonest way to argue.

Are you NOT arguing RAW? THen follow the tenets of the forum. You are aware of them I assume?

Out of Sight does 2 things. Find permission to ignore the second item. Page and paragraph.

There is no misrepresentation here, it's not as though I selcetively edited what he wrote to deceptively connect his first and secong statement while removing the rest of his post or anything. Because who would do that???

He made a statement very similar to my own. He claimed that rules must be taken as a whole. A statement that I had made earlier and I pointed that out.

He also made the odd statement that allocating wounds and removing casualties isnt a step by step process, which is incorrect. You have to allocate wounds before models can be removed. Otherwise I would be able to remove models that didn't already have wounds allocated. I didn't address that however as I understood his intent, something that, apparently, is nigh on impossible to do. (according to some)

I have been clear that WE are not arguing RAW and have not been for some time. I'll find my post expressing this after I'm done with this post. If you missed it.
I'll restate it here just in case someone feverishly posts before I can get the edit in.

This is an RAI argument, by all sides. It is not possible to argue the RAW for allocating wounds to units that are not the declared target unit. As there are no rules for doing so and, as it has been pointed out, "there's no rule saying that I can't" is not a valid argument.

Are you maintaining that your argument is strictly RAW?

I'll reiterate, Out of Sight does not have two parts. It is a single rule consisting of two sentences. While Allocation of wounds is indeed a multipart rule, with separate headers and independent bullet points, Out of Sight (one of the separated parts of wound allocation) has no such divisions and an exeption to a portion of the subset is an exemption from its entirely.

I'll ask again, because I want to make sure that we are discussing the same thing here. I thought that we were, but now I'm less than sure.

NOSFERATU, what is your argument? Are you claiming that your argument is a Rules As Written argument?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - not one part of your "rebuttal" (to be kind) contained any rules text, or actually even attempted to refute the argument.

Any chance you could refute it? Rules override / replace when they conflict. Please find the conflict. Page and graph will suffice.

What is the argument? Other than,"You are wrong?"

I've been quite clear that a holistic approach must be made, especialy in this case, as there are many aspects of the rules that interact with one another. Hinging an argument on the wording used in half of a statement while ignoring the greater context is no way to discuss anything.

All arguments are moot at this point however as Andystache made the definitive RAW argument with his post. There can be no denying what is written.

Now, since there are no rules for allocating wounds to any unit other than the target unit and target unit is clearly defined on pages 12 and 15 any argument made on how to allocate wounds to a unit other than a target unit is RAI. Any attempt to keep this a strict RAW doesn't even get off the ground.

It's rather easy to maintain an argument when someone doesn't state their position or answer questions regarding their reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

Here it is again in case it was missed. The moment that it was accepted that the unit hit by a blast template was to be considered a "target unit" the entire discussion became RAI.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight.

That's a lie. Flat out. You've failed at every point to cite that permission - only to indicate that it's inferred by permission to allocate.
Unfortunately for your position, allocation is not the only thing the Out of Sight rule refers to.


.

I think the word you were looking for there was "wrong". Use of the word "lie" is a bit inflamatory.

Although, technicaly, any statement that a person finds inaccurate can be called a lie, I don't feel that it is appropriate language to use in this forum. Otherwide any time someone is wrong, they could be called a liar.


Edit: I edited the crap out of this thing because the multiquote made it hard to read and I had to make sure that the right people were attributed the appropriate posts. The preview function doesn't work on my computer for some reason.

See, everyone is properly attributed. Yay, for facts!

Edit. Turds! I see what you mean. I got andystache and Rigeld mixed up. That was an error. Honestly, the multi qoute jacked the attributions. I left the content alone. I appologize for the mistake. I missed it then missed it again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - stop with the snide insults, and try to argue honestly. Or at least avoid selectively editing yoru own posts to totally alter the meaning, and who was attributed and quoted. That is also misrepresentation.

You deliberately misrepresented what was contextually clearly meant by "whole", and tried to claim it supported your argument. Which it does not.

Out of Sight is a defined term in 40k, consisting of 2 rules. You have permission to ignore one rule, but not the other.

You also still havent worked out, despite Rig and my attempts to illuminate you, that "target unit" is actually irrelevant, yet you keep shaking it about like it actually matters, a bit like a dog and a chew toy.

Wow man you're really swinging for the fences here. Target unit only became irrelevant when it was used to dwbunk your argument. If target unit is irrelevant what is your point? That phrase appears on every section of the rules that have been cited up to this point.

We are now on the third or fpurth page aince you or Rig attempted to contadict any point, you've both resorted to attacking the opponents but only with implications to keep within the guidelines.

Alsp you guys have been uaong the concept that OoS is tqo rules under one header. There is no justification for thos. The entire BRB is broken down inro sections with each section being a "rule". By this absurd reading Blast is actually 10+ rules becauae there are that many sentences.

Rig how is there not a rules conflict? You cannot assign wounds from an empty wound pool, FAQ allows for allocation of wounds regardless of LoS therefore there ia conflict.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[Here again the argument (no logical legerdemain required) is rather simple: find the rule that states you do not empty the wound pool

I assume that it's in the same place as the rule for barrage that states you do not empty the wound pool. What page number was that again?

Idolator - when you removed your comments from one of the quotes, you altered the meaning of the quotes. Misrepresenting the situation. Its not difficult.

You posted after Rigeld, and I was responding to your quote. Your "quote" then removed your comments, totally altering the meaning of my response.

As, quite frankly, your apparently dishonest posting is getting more trouble than it is worth, you are now on Ignore.

Andystache - apparently you missed the argument, despite it being clearly written down:

Find permission to not empty the wound pool, which you are told to do when models are out of LOS. This is the 3rdor 4th page only because you consistently have failed to read other posts before jumping back in

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - when you removed your comments from one of the quotes, you altered the meaning of the quotes. Misrepresenting the situation. Its not difficult.

You posted after Rigeld, and I was responding to your quote. Your "quote" then removed your comments, totally altering the meaning of my response.

As, quite frankly, your apparently dishonest posting is getting more trouble than it is worth, you are now on Ignore.

Andystache - apparently you missed the argument, despite it being clearly written down:

Find permission to not empty the wound pool, which you are told to do when models are out of LOS. This is the 3rdor 4th page only because you consistently have failed to read other posts before jumping back in

Yeah, andystache shouldn't have been listed as a quoter. As I said, I tried to fix it. Still didn't work. The content of each qoute was left completely unaltered. I was trying to show the context of the points as a whole instead of cherry picking, Honestly, who would do that?!?

My quote left my statement intact and in full, it was erroneously placed under Rigelds name by a quirk of the posting process. I think that we've all seen that happen before.

Since, Rigeld and now this guy have rage quit reading my posts, I'll ask any who might be interested. Does anyone else feel the I have been arguing from a dishonest position or that I have been dishonset at all? Seriously, I would like to know, because coming to an hinest determination is important for the game as a whole. I won't hold it against anyone if they feel that way. Have at me, just please be polite about it.

Edit: The only reason to tell someine that you are ignoring them is to cause an emmotional response. Otherwise you would just ignore them and be done with it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - when you removed your comments from one of the quotes, you altered the meaning of the quotes. Misrepresenting the situation. Its not difficult.

You posted after Rigeld, and I was responding to your quote. Your "quote" then removed your comments, totally altering the meaning of my response.

As, quite frankly, your apparently dishonest posting is getting more trouble than it is worth, you are now on Ignore.

Andystache - apparently you missed the argument, despite it being clearly written down:

Find permission to not empty the wound pool, which you are told to do when models are out of LOS. This is the 3rdor 4th page only because you consistently have failed to read other posts before jumping back in

How's this suit page 7 advanced vs basic. OoS is a basic rule that dictates that we empty the wound pool if no models are in LoS. Blast is an advanced rule with permission to hit, wound and allocate to any unit hit regardless of LoS (with the one exception being original placement of the marker).

As stated in my previous post you canjot allocate a wound from an empty wound pool, this creates a rules conflict leading us to page 7.

andystache wrote:
How's this suit page 7 advanced vs basic. OoS is a basic rule that dictates that we empty the wound pool if no models are in LoS. Blast is an advanced rule with permission to hit, wound and allocate to any unit hit regardless of LoS (with the one exception being original placement of the marker).

As stated in my previous post you canjot allocate a wound from an empty wound pool, this creates a rules conflict leading us to page 7.

There's no conflict - following your logic after you empty a wound pool normally you'd then create a conflict and allocate another wound.

The wound pool is empty. Kaput.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Blast is given permission to ignore the rules under the header Out of Sight.

That's a lie. Flat out. You've failed at every point to cite that permission - only to indicate that it's inferred by permission to allocate.
Unfortunately for your position, allocation is not the only thing the Out of Sight rule refers to.

I think the word you were looking for there was "wrong". Use of the word "lie" is a bit inflamatory.

I used the word "lie" because he's been corrected on that before. Continuing to misrepresent what the rules say even after being corrected must be intentional and therefore deserves the negative connotation.

Beast wrote:
I'm not saying I agree with your points or theirs, but I've noticed exactly what you have noticed in this regard... It should probably be reported (I'll let andystache decide since it was directed at him) since it is a form of trolling and definitely violates the tenets of the forums...

It really doesn't. If you feel it does, feel free to report it. I only use the word when it's deserved and not to "deflect" an argument or because mine is weak. When someone intentionally misrepresents a rule or a position even after being corrected, it deserves to be said.

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - when you removed your comments from one of the quotes, you altered the meaning of the quotes. Misrepresenting the situation. Its not difficult.

You posted after Rigeld, and I was responding to your quote. Your "quote" then removed your comments, totally altering the meaning of my response.

As, quite frankly, your apparently dishonest posting is getting more trouble than it is worth, you are now on Ignore.

Andystache - apparently you missed the argument, despite it being clearly written down:

Find permission to not empty the wound pool, which you are told to do when models are out of LOS. This is the 3rdor 4th page only because you consistently have failed to read other posts before jumping back in

Yeah, andystache shouldn't have been listed as a quoter. As I said, I tried to fix it. Still didn't work. The content of each qoute was left completely unaltered. I was trying to show the context of the points as a whole instead of cherry picking, Honestly, who would do that?!?

My quote left my statement intact and in full, it was erroneously placed under Rigelds name by a quirk of the posting process. I think that we've all seen that happen before.

Since, Rigeld and now this guy have rage quit reading my posts, I'll ask any who might be interested. Does anyone else feel the I have been arguing from a dishonest position or that I have been dishonset at all? Seriously, I would like to know, because coming to an hinest determination is important for the game as a whole. I won't hold it against anyone if they feel that way. Have at me, just please be polite about it.

Edit: The only reason to tell someine that you are ignoring them is to cause an emmotional response. Otherwise you would just ignore them and be done with it.

Dude, resist..., don't fall into the trap... they don't define your argument, all they should do is try to refute it. Once they start making false accusations about you and casting aspersions on your motivations instead of your argument, they have begun the process of undermining their own credibility (whether they were right or wrong or just asserting their opinion). Let them continue, the rest of us see it for what it is... To be fair though, I think their position is probably right but that is just my opinion...

No, most people do not automatically assume you (or anyone) has an ulterior motive to misrepresent things (especially when it is so easily detected in a forum). The issue of the multi-quote misplacing things is known (and they are probably very well aware of it themselves) so again, it is a deflection from the real issue. They've begun to attack the poster and not the argument. Certainly call them out on it in a polite way, just don't fall into the trap of responding in kind (as you have not done- ) Carry on!