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.

Hollismason wrote:


Again, it runs as a Jump Monstrous Creature, the only exceptions to that are the rules stated below that.

Perhaps you should start over with the relevant rules quotes for your argument. You've lost me.

Hollismason,
I wanted to bring this up in the other thread but I didn't consider myself part of that discussion, and it had gone on far to long that doing so wouldn't of been polite. I don't really consider myself part of this discussion either, but as I am seeing the same mistake here I felt the need to point it out. Not only is it is one reason why I consider arguments over the meaning of individual words to be meaningless, particularly arguments over how a sentence can be read, but it is something that people whom argue language seem never to understand.

The English language is a mess!

Aside from all the problems which come with being a language slapped together from many sources, depending solely on the location in which the language is being spoken the very sentence structures might change. That isn't even touching on arguments over the meaning of individual words, which are also used in different ways depending on location, but how a sentence is written can change as well. This means the English you are trying to 'teach' here may not even be the same English that the Authors are using to write their Rules.

Therefore any conclusions you come to that are supported purely by an argument of 'this is what is means' have no actual guarantee's of being correct, because the Authors may have a different idea of what is means.

ATM I'm not even sure what his argument is based on. I guess he thinks that 'Swooping' is a form of movement and nothing else. The rulebook indicates that 'Swooping' is a mode for FMC and therefore the rules for 'Swooping FMC' must be applied to all of the FMC's actions.

I like to think of FMC as some kind of transformer where they are Swooping or they are Gliding. 'Running' while swooping is actually just them flapping their wings really fast.

Well, aside from Hollismason's arguments being flawed.... it is a moot point in the OP case.

Onslaught lets you Run then Shoot. It does *not* let you Shoot then Run.

So the Nid player in the OP was performing an illegal procedure regardless.

JinxDragon wrote:
Hollismason,
I wanted to bring this up in the other thread but I didn't consider myself part of that discussion, and it had gone on far to long that doing so wouldn't of been polite. I don't really consider myself part of this discussion either, but as I am seeing the same mistake here I felt the need to point it out. Not only is it is one reason why I consider arguments over the meaning of individual words to be meaningless, particularly arguments over how a sentence can be read, but it is something that people whom argue language seem never to understand.

The English language is a mess!

Aside from all the problems which come with being a language slapped together from many sources, depending solely on the location in which the language is being spoken the very sentence structures might change. That isn't even touching on arguments over the meaning of individual words, which are also used in different ways depending on location, but how a sentence is written can change as well. This means the English you are trying to 'teach' here may not even be the same English that the Authors are using to write their Rules.

Therefore any conclusions you come to that are supported purely by an argument of 'this is what is means' have no actual guarantee's of being correct, because the Authors may have a different idea of what is means.

This would be true if we were "interpreting authorial intent". Or making a RAI , RAW is a bit different. Generally i mix the two.

We are both using the same English and the same grammatical rules. You won't see a editor or a writer who is doing technical writing make certain mistakes or use a "different" language.

Technical writing and just writing are different.

I'm a technical writer for a living. I write briefs , it's completely different than if I were writing a novel.

The same goes for instruction or instruction manuals.

Swooping is a state, and the FMC is always swooping during it, while running, moving, shooting. The term in the rules doesn't require an action, it a prefix.

If it wasn't it wouldn't have the hard to hit rule during opponents shooting phase

Hollismason wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Hollismason,
I wanted to bring this up in the other thread but I didn't consider myself part of that discussion, and it had gone on far to long that doing so wouldn't of been polite. I don't really consider myself part of this discussion either, but as I am seeing the same mistake here I felt the need to point it out. Not only is it is one reason why I consider arguments over the meaning of individual words to be meaningless, particularly arguments over how a sentence can be read, but it is something that people whom argue language seem never to understand.

The English language is a mess!

Aside from all the problems which come with being a language slapped together from many sources, depending solely on the location in which the language is being spoken the very sentence structures might change. That isn't even touching on arguments over the meaning of individual words, which are also used in different ways depending on location, but how a sentence is written can change as well. This means the English you are trying to 'teach' here may not even be the same English that the Authors are using to write their Rules.

Therefore any conclusions you come to that are supported purely by an argument of 'this is what is means' have no actual guarantee's of being correct, because the Authors may have a different idea of what is means.

This would be true if we were "interpreting authorial intent". Or making a RAI , RAW is a bit different. Generally i mix the two.

We are both using the same English and the same grammatical rules. You won't see a editor or a writer who is doing technical writing make certain mistakes or use a "different" language.

Technical writing and just writing are different.

I'm a technical writer for a living. I write briefs , it's completely different than if I were writing a novel.

The same goes for instruction or instruction manuals.

Well the rules guys at GW are novel writers first, as evident by their sloppy rules writing, and instruction manual writers second or third at best...

They clearly have no legal training, and not much practical game experience either it seems.

As Hollismason succinctly proved in his first post you can indeed leave combat airspace whilst running. As his rules quote prove and he's even highlighted the relevant parts.

But as Coredump has highlighted what the Tyranid player did was illegal. Onslaught only allows you to run then shoot, if he's shot he's missed his opportunity to run. If he's run off the board he can no longer shoot. Onslaught is not Battle Focus.

Then let me ask you a professional question:
Do court enforce contracts via the concept that each word has only one very strict legal meaning or via the concept of 'idiot in a hurry?'
Which would involve enforcing the contact based on how the common person would read the language used.

This whole discussion is similar to one we had at our FLGS about move through cover and running. One nid player vehemently argued that moving and running were both moves and it applied to both.

 deviantduck wrote:
This whole discussion is similar to one we had at our FLGS about move through cover and running. One nid player vehemently argued that moving and running were both moves and it applied to both.

Running isn't slowed by terrain so MTC doesn't apply...
I'm confused.

He was wanting 2D6 for rolling for run moves.

it seems to me that the rules allow for running off the board after the psychic phase, as the FMC is swooping the whole time - it's a mode not a movement, and it remains for the whole turn.

it also seems that FMC's cannot run over other units, as swooping only refers to movement when saying you move like jump infantry, and jump infantry cannot run through units. doesn't make sense, but that's how it's written.

so a FMC can move, shoot psychic attacks, then run off the board in the shooting phase, so long as you're not in his way.

DP firing Psychic Shrieks and Doom bolts off then running off the board could be good.