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.

For one simple fact:
There is often no proof to support 'intent' which leads to everyone arguing that their personal view is what the writer envisioned.

The very fact that I, personally, can not reach into the mind of the writer and probe around in there to find out exactly what they where thinking when they penned some words into this Rule Book is the very reason I will never accept 'I know the writers intent' as a legitimate argument from anyone bar the writers themselves. Given that this is an anonymously forum, even if you where to claim to be the writer I still would not believe you so openly. I will still have to fall back on the fact that no human can know, for 100% accuracy, what another was thinking even if they are very closely related. I find it impossible to believe that some person sitting half way around the world, having never met the writer, somehow knows exactly what the writer was intending....

The closest thing we can come to the writers intent is the very words they penned, known as Rules as Written.

Also:

BrB page120 wrote:Terrain can be place anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain

Emphasis mine. Note how the Strong Hold rules overrule the 2nd part of that rule. Now show specific permission to break the first part.

i was only pointing out the fact that when a member here wants something to go thier way and RAW supports them, that is what they say. the same person however Will scream RAI when they want it to go the other way when RAW does not support them.

Any time you so much as mention the concept of discussing it with your local TO or players you will actually be playing against, you get the resounding "THAT DOESNT BELONG HERE. WHAT WE SAY THE RULES ARE, THE RULES ARE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR LOCAL TO OROTHER PLAYERS SAY AND IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO RAW BEING GOSPEL!!!!"
otherwise, I would actually say it would be a good idea to discuss it with them after reading through and discussin it here. Heck, I would even suggest having them join the site and take part in the discussion with you here to begin with.

In this case, the reasoning for why the imperium would build an elevated bastion actually makes a lot of sense and the rules actually allows for this sort of "conversion".

I will still have to fall back on the fact that no human can know, for 100% accuracy, what another was thinking even if they are very closely related. I find it impossible to believe that some person sitting half way around the world, having never met the writer, somehow knows exactly what the writer was intending....

The closest thing we can come to the writers intent is the very words they penned, known as Rules as Written.

That tired hypocritical argument again. We can't know 100% anything. We can only know stuff to with in reasonable doubt. Unless you have 100% proof that we aren't all hallucinating on what is actually written.

Sometimes knowing the writers intent to a reasonable doubt is impossible sometimes it is not. Just like sometimes we can't even agree on RaW as numerous threads on this very forum illustrate. Here the intent is very clear. Just like on how the LoS rules work for Space Marines wearing helmets...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also:

BrB page120 wrote:Terrain can be place anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain

Emphasis mine. Note how the Strong Hold rules overrule the 2nd part of that rule. Now show specific permission to break the first part.

I'd lean this way at the moment, the Stronghold book removes the 3", but doesn't actually remove that rule.

Except that fortifications have their own, separate set of rules on how they are deployed. They happen to be right before the terrain placement rules.

But they are still terrain.

Provide the page number and exact quotation tat says a fortification must (the word must is important here) be placed "on the board". again, those words are important. because if you are playing using a battemat or some thing else hat sit on top of the board itself and would prevent physical contact with the actual "wood" of the board your argument would mean that the player could not deploy them for that game at all.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I will still have to fall back on the fact that no human can know, for 100% accuracy, what another was thinking even if they are very closely related. I find it impossible to believe that some person sitting half way around the world, having never met the writer, somehow knows exactly what the writer was intending....

The closest thing we can come to the writers intent is the very words they penned, known as Rules as Written.

That tired hypocritical argument again. We can't know 100% anything. We can only know stuff to with in reasonable doubt. Unless you have 100% proof that we aren't all hallucinating on what is actually written.

Sometimes knowing the writers intent to a reasonable doubt is impossible sometimes it is not. Just like sometimes we can't even agree on RaW as numerous threads on this very forum illustrate. Here the intent is very clear. Just like on how the LoS rules work for Space Marines wearing helmets...

I think the problem here is that it's probably best to see these things on a case-by-case basis. I think most people will rely on RAW for the vast majority of scenarios (How far can infantry move? How many Vendettas can I take in a squadron? etc.) and only resort to RAI or HIWPI when following the RAW either breaks the game or causes a gross, potentially unintended imbalance between players.

For example, very few people will go with RAW when it comes to things like drawing LoS from 'eyes' (as you already pointed out) and that makes perfect sense. It would render the game unplayable from a logical standpoint and can be reasonably adjusted as such.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are players who houserule a great deal and consider the RAW to be very loose indeed (extra hullpoints for vehicles, different damage tables, altered FOC, mixed armies, etc.). For them it makes the game more fun, more dynamic, and (one can assume) adds to their experience.

In between are the ~90% of players who follow the RAW until it becomes an issue and then determine the best way to resolve the situation. I don't think these people will usually go *against* the RAW unless there's a valid reason to do so and even when a rule might seem strange or inconsistent (allowing double Coteaz, for example) it usually takes quite a bit of discussion and determination to stray from the wording of the rules themselves and into the realm of 'what the designers intended.' Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but, as others have also mentioned many times in the past, tournament play will often favour the 'RAW' perspective and it is probably safer to practice/play with the assumption that it is more likely for the TO to rule in favour of the words on the page than what the Internet or a FLGS might have determined via RAI.

Certainly not always the case, but I think that (and the simplicity of not having to struggle with what *might* have been intended) is essentially the logic behind favouring RAW over RAI.

DoW

Please stay on-topic. A conversation about RAW v. RAI or "How You Would Play It" belongs in the General Discussion Forum. Thanks

Doesn't it also tell you to deploy your armies on the board? An inf unit placed on a bastion is still on the board -- it isn't off the board.

I wouldn't ever do this in a regular game but I sure would in a tournament where prizes are at stake. I think it is absolutely allowed by rule as written in the new terrain book.

Seems kinda pointless, not convinced from the wording the bastion would get a Invun save. Can't see many Tourn's allowing it tbh.

 Mythra wrote:
Doesn't it also tell you to deploy your armies on the board? An inf unit placed on a bastion is still on the board -- it isn't off the board.

I wouldn't ever do this in a regular game but I sure would in a tournament where prizes are at stake. I think it is absolutely allowed by rule as written in the new terrain book.

so by your logic you cannot deploy a unit inside a transport, or fortification, or on a hill, or in a forest....you know...since they are not on the 'table', in fact we cannot actually place them on the gaming board unless it is the exposed table we are playing on that happens to be apropriate size?

But the transport they are in is on the board so they count as being on the board as opposed to being in reserves.

 Mythra wrote:
But the transport they are in is on the board so they count as being on the board as opposed to being in reserves.

You failed to address any of the other points: hills, fortifications etc

 FlingitNow wrote:
If that is your attitude your army better be all unhelmeted humans or you can't draw LoS to anything

Actually RAW this isn't the case because models in your own unit don't block line of sight and you are your own model in your unit so you can't block line of sight with your self.

Many players use battlemats or FW boards or even use foam on top of the boards, they will paint or flock thier boards as well. All of those would prevent physical contact with the wood of the board itself.

Now as to whether it would get the invulnerable save is what swe should be talking about as that is something that would actually be in question. RAI would say yes it would. Comman sense wuld say yes it wuld as that is actually a fluffy "conversion" that the imperum would actually make with that express purpose in mind.I think the actual wording is ambiguous. Would fortifications fall under the title of units.?

Fortifications are not units. They do not have a characteristic profile, nor a unit type.

Only if you put wings on the bastion. It is a landing pad, after all.

Should we go back to discussion the RAW here?

BrB page120 wrote:Terrain can be place anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain

Fortification networks allows for the Components of a Network to be placed in Base contact

Is this the actual way the Rule is written?

Because this would remove the 3" Restriction but not the fact it has to be on the board?

We debunked the whole "on the board' thing.
Can you cite in the BRB where it specifically says the words' on the board" in relation to fortifications?
This has been debunked because as all boards have some sort of covering (unless you literally play on a board with no foam, or paint or flocking or anything of that nature. Any of those things would negate being able to deploy them as they would not be in physical contact with the wood of the board.
"On the board" is deployed in the playing area which allows you to move up so long as that 'up" is in the playing area and this falls under that.

as a side note before anyone else brings it up. You may notice the 'base contact" Some may argue that this means that the bases of both must be in contact to be in "base contact". Only a single base needs to be in contact with the other models to be in "base contact", so the base of one sitting on top of the other would fall under base contact. now, if it said 'base to base" contact, it would be relevant but it does not say "base to base".

 EVIL INC wrote:
Can you cite in the BRB where it specifically says the words' on the board" in relation to fortifications?

Something tells me you post without even reading previous posts? It's even got a page number!

The question here is exactly what "On the board" means in relation to the rulebook. Does it mean "In physical contact with the playing surface" or "In area of the playing surface"?

On Page 30, the Fall back section makes reference to a "Table Edge" rather than the "Board Edge". So we can infer that the "Board" and the "Table" are separate entities in the context of gaming. I would assume that "Board" refers to the area of play while "Table" refers to the actual surface. Further evidence that "Table" refers to the actual surface is that the Embarkation rules on page 78 say "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table" (Emphasis mine).

However, later it says "Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent Character(s) disembarking while the others remain on the board" (Again, emphasis mine) potentially muddying the issue. Though, this in context still agrees with the board being the area of play while not necessarily disproving the Table v Board distinction. Also note that nowhere in the rules is it explicitly said that the "Table" and "Board" are separate entities so this argument could be also invalidated by the permissive nature of the rules. Then again, nowhere in the rules (as far I know) does it say it is a permissive rules set so inferred rules have been drawn before.

Also note that in the terrain placement rules on page 120 it seems to use the two terms interchangeably which is a little confusing.

Let us hope a FAQ clears this all up, hmm?

The CustomLime,
Welcome to Game Workshop's duel use of terminology, if they are not using the a single term for two completely unrelated things they are using two unrelated terms for the a single thing....

Yeah, to be honest, the results of my 10 minute thumbing through of the rulebook is inconclusive. Games Workshop never defined what they meant by "Board" and so I feel this is really up to personal interpretation. HIWPI? Go for it but I wouldn't go out and buy the kits just yet. There could a FAQ on the horizon. I don't think the bastion would get a Invuln save unless it itself counts as a unit.

But surely within this conclusion the words "board" or "table" would never have meant "on top of other fortifications"?

Or am i missing something here?

No, the distinction between the two is that "board" means "The gaming area" and "Table" means the "gaming surface" (As in, the actual plywood used to make it).

To clarify, my argument is on the basis that, in the context of their usage in the rules, the term "Table" is used typically when talking about the placement or displacement . Board seems to refer to the actual battlefield itself in most usage. The thing is, though, on the same page that talks about rules the two terms are used interchangeably which just muddies things.

The reason I believe in the "Board v Table" distinction is because if they were the same thing then you couldn't deploy your fortifications on hills or anything. Then you'd have to ask whether models that are on hills or ruins would count as being "On the Board" because that would (I think) mess with certain rules.

However, either interpretation is just as justified as the other. A counter argument to this is that it is probable that the designers themselves made no distinction and used the two terms freely as it pleased them. There's proof for that too in the big ol'' rulebook. Really, it just comes down to sloppy writing. I'd wait for a FAQ to answer this personally.

Sooooooo... We can conclude that a Bastion cannot be placed upon a Skyshield due to the Rule stating?

BRB p120 wrote:Terrain can be place anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain

Again, it isn't defined what the "Board" exactly is. It could just mean "Inside the boundaries" or, like you interpret it, "On the actual surface of the table". If the "Board "means "actual surface" then anything placed on a hill or in a ruin isn't on the board anymore.

The sad thing is is that this could be easily solved if they started using the phrase "Area of play" to define the general gaming area and table as the actual table.

deleted