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.

Take that statement to a lawyer and yes, he will expect $5.

Nothing in your statement disallows the payment. TBH if this is the case, the response should be "I may jink depending on what weapons you are firing."

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Take that statement to a lawyer and yes, he will expect $5.

Only for his time :-)
Because he did not jump when he was supposed to, but sometime later.

What makes the first word more important than the ones I highlighted?

If you get a bill and it says "you may pay this now but you must pay this by the end of the month." Does that mean you have to pay it now? Or do you have some wiggle room, in this case being 13 days? This rule is the same idea.

If you look on page 30 of the BRB, a defender has between "2. Choose a Target" and "4. Roll to Hit" to declare Jink.

I'm curious, what do the new rules say about targeting a unit, is it the same as last ed?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mulletdude wrote:
This restriction is great for trolling models with Jink too. Say you have a chapter master who has yet to fire his orbital bombardment. Declare he is shooting at that skimmer and go to pick up the large blast template, but then ask if your opponent wants to jink. He says yes? Put the large blast down and declare the chapter master is throwing a krak grenade. Enjoy the lulz

That only works if he is in range to throw the krak grenade. Otherwise, he has to use the orbital.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Take that statement to a lawyer and yes, he will expect $5.

Only for his time :-)
Because he did not jump when he was supposed to, but sometime later.

Unfortunately your statement did not state that he had to jump when you said 'banana' only that he may jump. It has created a condition in the mind of the reader that he is not allowed to jump before you say 'Banana'

In much the same way, the rule regarding Jink has also created a condition of 'not jink' that applies to the model that can only be removed by the trigger action of targeting the unit, and reimposed by the effect of rolling to-hit dice.

Much like the picture of the old crone and young lady, both exist on the same page, but you can only see one at a time. I'd ask my opponent how he wants to play it.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Unfortunately your statement did not state that he had to jump when you said 'banana' only that he may jump. It has created a condition in the mind of the reader that he is not allowed to jump before you say 'Banana'

He's never forced to - it's optional.
He's not required to get money for jumping at all. That's all the "may" does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dg3263827 wrote:
What makes the first word more important than the ones I highlighted?

The fact that it sets the timer. When X happens, you may do Y. You're not forced to do Y, but you may.

If you get a bill and it says "you may pay this now but you must pay this by the end of the month." Does that mean you have to pay it now? Or do you have some wiggle room, in this case being 13 days? This rule is the same idea.

Considering that wording is nothing like the rule in question, I'd ask why you bring it up.

If you look on page 30 of the BRB, a defender has between "2. Choose a Target" and "4. Roll to Hit" to declare Jink.

This statement breaks the rule set by the first sentence of the Jink SR.

I have edited out a stack of off-topic nonsense. As a reminder to all: Address the topic, not the poster.

I get what you're saying, but 'may' doesn't mean 'has to'. It is, unfortunately, an open statement. The closure of the statement doesn't appear until your following sentence. 'Before I...'

Had the Jink rule left out the second sentence with the '...before to-hit rolls...' there would be no argument, you could switch out weapons for another one.

GW has written an opening condition, and then a closing condition in a separate sentence.

GW Rules as Written TM (Total Madness)

Cheers

Andrew

rigeld2 wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:
What makes the first word more important than the ones I highlighted?

The fact that it sets the timer. When X happens, you may do Y. You're not forced to do Y, but you may.

If you look on page 30 of the BRB, a defender has between "2. Choose a Target" and "4. Roll to Hit" to declare Jink.

This statement breaks the rule set by the first sentence of the Jink SR.

Yes, you are correct, WHEN a jetbike is selected as a target is MAY Jink. He is not forced to, but he may. However, he MUST declare if he is going to Jink before To Hit rolls are made. So, RAW, after being selected as a target and before To Hit rolls are made, the jetbike can declare that he will Jink. You cannot ignore the second sentence of the rule and concentrate on the first sentence. The statement doesn't break the rule because the rule, in it's completion, clearly states the time frame in which a Jink can be declared.

 insaniak wrote:
I have edited out a stack of off-topic nonsense. As a reminder to all: Address the topic, not the poster.

Apparently you've expunged a sizeable amount of on topic material as well. The thread reads quite strangely now with answers given to questions never asked.

A bit trigger-happy are we?

Restating my most recent point...

rigeld2 wrote:Read the rule correctly instead of summarizing it please.
Jink is declared when the unit is selected as a target - that's a single point in time. Sure, it remains targeted throughout the shooting attack, but it's only selected once.

Which, again, is where the disagreement is. Selection is a state, not an instance. If I select someone to be the leader of this topic, they remain selected by me even while carrying the title of Leader. That's the beauty of the word selected... it describes a past tense state of being, it does not say "Jink is declared when an opponent selects this unit as a target".

 dg3263827 wrote:
Yes, you are correct, WHEN a jetbike is selected as a target is MAY Jink. He is not forced to, but he may. However, he MUST declare if he is going to Jink before To Hit rolls are made. So, RAW, after being selected as a target and before To Hit rolls are made, the jetbike can declare that he will Jink. You cannot ignore the second sentence of the rule and concentrate on the first sentence. The statement doesn't break the rule because the rule, in it's completion, clearly states the time frame in which a Jink can be declared.

'When' is not 'after'. Restated your point looks like this:

 dg3263827 wrote:
So, RAW, WHEN being selected as a target and before To Hit rolls are made, the jetbike can declare that he will Jink.

Which is, I believe, exactly Rigel's point.

If when is not implied as after, when exactly is it?

The rule sets a beginning "When a unit is selected" and an end "Before rolls To Hit" as to when a Jink can be declared.

IMO, the following senario follows RAW:
Attacker says, "I am going to target your jetbike."
Defender doesn't say anything.
Attacker says, "I am going to shoot my lasguns."
Defender says nothing.
Attacker doesn't wound jetbikes.
Attack says, "I'm going to shoot my plasma gun."
Defender says, "I'm going to Jink."

 Kojiro wrote:
'When' is not 'after'.

When I grow up, I'm going to be a doctor. Sadly, if I don't become a doctor the instant I grow up, I'll be doomed to roam the earth without a PhD.

You can totally quit your job when you win the lottery. But you need to decide like THAT DAY whether you want to keep your job or not.

 dg3263827 wrote:
If when is not implied as after, when exactly is it?

We have a step by step process. A model is targeted during step 2- Select Target. A model declares jink (if its controller so desires) when it is targeted. Surely that act of targeting is unambiguously done during step 2? Any subsequent step must then- assuming we accept the idea that step are sequential- after step 2.

Kyutaru wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
'When' is not 'after'.

When I grow up, I'm going to be a doctor. Sadly, if I don't become a doctor the instant I grow up, I'll be doomed to roam the earth without a PhD.

You can totally quit your job when you win the lottery. But you need to decide like THAT DAY whether you want to keep your job or not.

These situations aren't comparable. At all.
In real life it's not an open and shut turn off valve. So literally any comparison you draw will fail - like these two do.

He MAY declare Jink WHEN targeted but he MUST declare Jink before To Hit rolls.

If you are so adamant that Jink can ONLY be declared WHEN targeted, how do you explain the second sentence?

Kyutaru wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Read the rule correctly instead of summarizing it please.
Jink is declared when the unit is selected as a target - that's a single point in time. Sure, it remains targeted throughout the shooting attack, but it's only selected once.

Which, again, is where the disagreement is. Selection is a state, not an instance. If I select someone to be the leader of this topic, they remain selected by me even while carrying the title of Leader. That's the beauty of the word selected... it describes a past tense state of being, it does not say "Jink is declared when an opponent selects this unit as a target".

I thought being targeted was the state? I'm relatively sure you mentioned that. Am I imagining it?
You select someone as the leader, and then they are the leader.
You select a unit as a target and they may declare to Jink.
When X happens, you may Y. Doing it later means you opted not to Y when X happened.
Edit: nope, I didn't imagine it.

When targeted opens the opportunity window as even past the targeting step, the unit is still being targeted. Nothing has made it cease being targeted.

Your (current) first post in the thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dg3263827 wrote:
He MAY declare Jink WHEN targeted but he MUST declare Jink before To Hit rolls.

If you are so adamant that Jink can ONLY be declared WHEN targeted, how do you explain the second sentence?

It's evidence of intent, but not enough for it to be obvious IMO.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
'When' is not 'after'.

When I grow up, I'm going to be a doctor. Sadly, if I don't become a doctor the instant I grow up, I'll be doomed to roam the earth without a PhD.

You can totally quit your job when you win the lottery. But you need to decide like THAT DAY whether you want to keep your job or not.

These situations aren't comparable. At all.
In real life it's not an open and shut turn off valve. So literally any comparison you draw will fail - like these two do.

Who is making comparisons? Certainly not me, so cut it out reggy. He stated 'When' is not 'after'. My post was on point to directly oppose that statement. When can definitely be used to describe an after state. Of course, the whole crux of the back and forth is that we disagree whether that version of When applies in this context, so yet again nothing new has been stated by anyone.

My challenge that someone come up with a new point remains unconquered.

rigeld2, Kojiro...

Humor me, please...

I say, "I'm going to count from one to seven. When I say two, you may tell me to stop. You must tell me to stop before I say four." Does this mean you have to tell me to stop when I say two or can you also tell me to stop on three?

 dg3263827 wrote:
He MAY declare Jink WHEN targeted but he MUST declare Jink before To Hit rolls.

If you are so adamant that Jink can ONLY be declared WHEN targeted, how do you explain the second sentence?

Oversight? Sloppy editing? Remnant of a previous edition?

The fact is that declaring jink at step 2 does not violate the second sentence but declaring it at step 3 or 4 (or anywhere in between) does violate the first by virtue of 3 and 4 being after 2. You get to declare a jink when selected as a target. You are not selected in step 1, 3 or 4. You are selected in 2 and should declare in 2.

rigeld2 wrote:
I thought being targeted was the state? I'm relatively sure you mentioned that. Am I imagining it?

Am I to understand that you believe only a single state can be had at any particular time? Am I also to understand that you fail to see how "when targeted" and "selected as a target" mirror each other as identical in all but literal spelling? Am I only imagining you responding with some sort of knowledge of CONTEXT like the rules you adamantly defend? Yep, I did imagine it. Splitting hairs over something that is not a direct rules quote isn't exactly helping your side, just making it seem petty.

You MAY declare in step 2 but you MUST declare before step 4; ergo, you also MAY declare during step 3.

 Kojiro wrote:
Oversight? Sloppy editing? Remnant of a previous edition?

So in other words we have two interpretations... your interpretation requires that we discard another statement because it doesn't make any sense to have it (it's redundant) while our interpretation joins both statements into a harmonious joint-existence (start condition to end condition)... I think you said something along the lines of this before regarding Happy's post but... it would seem our explanation is the one making the most sense here. Our explanation makes both rules necessary while your explanation only makes one of the rules necessary and another redundant.

 dg3263827 wrote:

I say, "I'm going to count from one to seven. When I say two, you may tell me to stop. You must tell me to stop before I say four." Does this mean you have to tell me to stop when I say two or can you also tell me to stop on three?

The basic gist of the argument is, Kyutaru stated, whether or not 'when' means a specific point of time or if it means 'from this point onward'. I would argue in casual conversation it could be either and we discount literal interpretations..But this is not casual conversation, it is a step by step process in a rule book. Literal interpretations *should* be the order of the day.

If something says it occurs at a specific step I see no reason to choose an interpretation that allows it be chosen at another step. Hence I favour the 'immediate' version of when.

Put me into the "they have up until before to-hit rolls are made".
Mostly because that's what it says in the rulebook when you read it without going: "if you look at the Greek origin of the first word in the second sentence it indirectly implies that the player was born under the sign of the monkey and therefore concludes
That in fact they can ignore the third sentence of the rule per the 3rd edition faq ruling of the 1994 row vs wade agreement."

If it says you have up until to-hit rolls are made, then you have up until to-hit rolls are made.

Of course at this point, people already have picked their sides and will not budge no matter what anyone says. Right?

Ye gods I can barely keep up.

Kyutaru wrote:
So in other words we have two interpretations... your interpretation requires that we discard another statement because it doesn't make any sense to have it (it's redundant)

There is no requirement to discard it but agreed, it does seem redundant. But then if Jink had been written as:
After a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink.
This would not be an argument. But it doesn't.

Kyutaru wrote:
while our interpretation joins both statements into a harmonious joint-existence (start condition to end condition)...

I don't believe it does. I think when given step by step, sequential timing 'when' is going to imply 'at this step'.

Kyutaru wrote:
I think you said something along the lines of this before regarding Happy's post but... it would seem our explanation is the one making the most sense here. Our explanation makes both rules necessary while your explanation only makes one of the rules necessary and another redundant.

For what it's worth, I believe you have the RAI but not the RAW. One could easily argue that the second sentence isn't meant to be there any more than 'When' is meant to be 'After'.

yukondal wrote:
Of course at this point, people already have picked their sides and will not budge no matter what anyone says. Right?

\

The new Smartest Person in the Thread. Sorry B.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
For what it's worth, I believe you have the RAI but not the RAW. One could easily argue that the second sentence isn't meant to be there any more than 'When' is meant to be 'After'.

Which leads right back to where we started. One of these two facts has to receive a concession before we can continue any further. I don't think it's going to happen.

A more rational mind and someone I consider more of an authority than those blindly disagreeing wrote it out fairly well I think, I will attack the PDF here, just scan down to the shooting sequence that he even references in the PDF.

 Kojiro wrote:

 dg3263827 wrote:

I say, "I'm going to count from one to seven. When I say two, you may tell me to stop. You must tell me to stop before I say four." Does this mean you have to tell me to stop when I say two or can you also tell me to stop on three?

The basic gist of the argument is, Kyutaru stated, whether or not 'when' means a specific point of time or if it means 'from this point onward'. I would argue in casual conversation it could be either and we discount literal interpretations..But this is not casual conversation, it is a step by step process in a rule book. Literal interpretations *should* be the order of the day.

If something says it occurs at a specific step I see no reason to choose an interpretation that allows it be chosen at another step. Hence I favour the 'immediate' version of when.

I just explained a step by step process of me counting, giving you instructions on telling me when to tell me to stop. And it directly relates to this argument, so please, humor me with an answer.

 Lobomalo wrote:
A more rational mind and someone I consider more of an authority than those blindly disagreeing wrote it out fairly well I think, I will attack the PDF here, just scan down to the shooting sequence that he even references in the PDF.

So basically this guy has a line that says "Declare Jinking" at step 5, after weapon selection but before To Hit rolls which are step 6. Whoever made that list agrees with the "until To Hit" party.

Not entirely sure how that matters though. Who is this anonymous donator?

Kyutaru wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
A more rational mind and someone I consider more of an authority than those blindly disagreeing wrote it out fairly well I think, I will attack the PDF here, just scan down to the shooting sequence that he even references in the PDF.

So basically this guy has a line that says "Declare Jinking" at step 5, after weapon selection but before To Hit rolls which are step 6. Whoever made that list agrees with the "until To Hit" party.

Not entirely sure how that matters though. Who is this anonymous donator?

He wrote out what I was trying to explain, the process from which you have to declare a Jink, beginning to end

Some dude people are cheering on in gen chat

Not to mention, as an unbiased 3rd party who isn't even in the discussion, his opinion carries more weight when we are talking about rule interpretation tbh. As the opposing side has descended into insanity from what I have seen in the last few pages.