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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It's not irrelevant to discuss RAI. RAI can make the game work vs broken RAW adherence. Look at BCB's sig if you want to see why RAW All The Time means the game is functionally unplayable - I kinda hate that list of silly wording nitpicks but go play byvthem literally if you want. Absolutely EVERY 40K player uses RAI to make the game work. So RAI is very relevant and valid for discussion, quit saying it isn't. What is irrelevant is discussing RAI vs RAW. So please stahpppp. Please.

Couldn't agree more I can think of many instances where the game is unplayable without RaI that isn't in question. In those circumstances discussing RaI is completely appropriate (acts of fayth, understrength units before faq, index datasheets). The issue here is that in this particular instance Raw is not broken (just disliked), it doesn't make RaI irrelevant in other circumstances where it is broken and in those discussing RaI is appropriate however since RaW is not broken it is irrelevant here. Again feel free to be the first person to demonstrate RaW not functioning using an actual rule quote and page number- it will only take one and then we can move on to RaI. However I doubt one is coming as we are now at page 3.

In short you don't need to discuss a fix when there isn't a problem. So demonstrate a rules problem under RaW

No. I said it's fruitless to argue this line so just stop. It doesn't have to be broken to need RAI if RAW is no nonsensical. You're simply on a different comprehension page and not following me, or needing to be right on the internet. Just let it drop here.

Except in this case RaW makes sense. Unless you can explain to me why it doesn't useing the rules.

I don't have to be right in fact I'm more than happy to be wrong just look at the ministorum priest thread to see me be wrong I assert that you can't take a particular combination of equipment someone else quotes the codex page and passage that let's you I am demonstrated wrong useing the RaW so I agree with him.

This is no different if you can show me useing the rules that there is a problem I will be happy to agree with you that there is a problem but what you are doing is stating that there is a problem which you cannot then evidence under the rules that has no basis in a rules thread.

So please prove me wrong

Because a model not on the board is not in play? We've been over this before. You and I have an incompatible PoV regarding this issue. I say it's common sense and a common understanding between players and you say that's not what the rules say.
There's no rule to cover the situation since GW assumes a modicum of commonality between the players. If you and I were to sit down and play a game face to face we'd have to call a TO over to arbitrate the situation.

And the TO would say what are the RaW.

Where does it say it's not in play? where does it say it can't be targeted?

What is common sense is subjective it's not a rules argument and certainly has no place in GW''s rules writting.

40k is a game it is not real why should a guardsman take up as much room in a transport as a space marine that's not common sense (how do 10 fit anyway there isnt physically enough room in the model) or over watching troops refusing to fire flamers at something 9" away that's not common sense or storm ravens manage to fly effectively in combat (they have the aerodynamic properties of a brick) that lacks common sense 20 conscripts can fit in a bastion but 2 squads of 10 infantry cant? If you start poking holes in any rule breaking common sense then we will be here all year. 20

Common sense is irrelevant either prove me wrong under the rules or concede that you are unable to and we can conclude that their is no problem

Show me in the rules where it explicitly states that a model off the table is eligible to be affected by an in play rule.

It's already been shown that GW made up special wording so that a model not in play can be affected by a stratagem. The stratagem you are trying to use lacks that wording. So, if one stratagem has wording to explicitly allow it to be used on off board models and the other doesn't why should the one that doesn't have the wording be allowed to effect off board models?

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Unless he's wrong about you being wrong.

It's not a clear cut RAW answer, but it's not a clear cut RAW answer that you do affect them off the board, and something in the rules to use as precedence certainly helps indicate which interpretation is valid.

Well, it would except GW botches writing this kinda stuff too much. Look at FnP abilities. The Avatar of Khaine's SPECIFICALLY says it can be used against Mortal Wounds, but other versions did not. We actually used to debate on here if that mattered. Ultimately, GW said it didn't in a FAQ and they all work on mortal wounds. So specifically mentioning that on the Murder Sword doesn't help us much.

It's almost like the FAQ supersedes RaW? After all they have made several special snowflake rulings that contradict RaW (Pask Orders and Red Grail are two that come to mind).

Yeah, but we're not arguing Murder Sword's RAW, we're talking about whether you can use it's explicit wording as RAI. Obviously, we can't because it sure as heck didn't matter for the FnP issue.

You can use it as precedence to argue what the RAI is (at least until a FAQ comes out and changes everything, like a FAQ ruling saying you can play the stratagem on a unit off the board but only on Thursdays, or on Tuesdays if you pay double the command points).

U02dah4 wrote:
Strictly speaking they got rid of the permissive definition in 8th.

BTW- how did they do this? I didn't see anything to say "If this isn't in the rules then feel free to do it until we [GW} say otherwise."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
We are not saying it's on the board we are saying that not being on the board doesn't prevent it being targeted. Embarked stuff is a different case entirely.

Question- Who do I get to hit with a weapon aimed at your reserves? If the reserves are eligible targets for your purposes then they must be eligible for mine.

The murdersword uses (for clarification) it has no baring on any other instance for a full discussion on the topic and why
see the thread Mr Bacon highlighted earlier.

As to FAQ that could change any rule however one has not been published on the topic so it's irrelevant till they do and then it becomes Raw at that point

As to Leo the stygies viii strategem, the lucius strategem any of the extra relic stratagems even the mobile command vehicle strategem (which is cleverly worded to get round the unable to target an embarked unit rule). All these obviously impact things at a time they are not on the board. Strategems are all worded differently to effect different things your making a common sense argument about what they may target infering from one to another but as stated earlier common sense has no place in the rules and GW may have used a different writter accounting for the difference.

On an individual basis you may target whatever the strategem tells you to target which is based on the individual strategem's wording. Unless you can find a rule preventing it (e.g. the embarked unit rule) so where's the rule saying you can't target a model not on the board. Given all the examples that can only be effecting a model not on the board.

There is also precedent in the case of units off the board firing on to the board eg in baneblade variants and bastion's although they are granted permission to do so by there transport so it's not unheard of for off the table things to effect the board just rare

They got rid of permissive definition when they cut the size of the rulebook down to 8 pages and it didn't make the cut. No that doesn't give you pemission to do anything

As to the silly argument about targeting reserves you cannot measure LoS or distance to something that does not have a geophysical position on the battlefield don't waste space with that spurious argument because no one is arguing that

Just because they cut the rules down to however many pages does not mean that GW got rid of the permissive rule set. Please prove that you don't need permission to do something in game. Hint: if you do you can expect a lot of problems with your models being moved by your opponents since the rules don't say that only you can move your models.

Your statement that common sense has no place in a RAW sicussion is patently offensive. Of course common sense is needed to play any game with rules.

Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean you can dismiss that argument out of hand.. Saying that just because 2 different people {b]may[/b] have written 2 different rules in different manners does not lessen the argument about RAW it may or may not be indicitive of the actual intent of the game. For all you know the 2 rules were written and edited by the same person. What if that's the case?

In any event there's nothing that I can do or show you that would change your mind. It seems to me that you've made up your mind and are not really open to other opinions.

U02dah4 wrote:
The murdersword uses (for clarification) it has no baring on any other instance for a full discussion on the topic and why
see the thread Mr Bacon highlighted earlier.

What, you can't even be bothered with giving a quick summary why it doesn't have any bearing? Since it does specify models off the board, it certainly looks like there's bearing without providing evidence to us, and we shouldn't have to go track it down elsewhere.

U02dah4 wrote:
As to Leo the stygies viii strategem, the lucius strategem any of the extra relic stratagems even the mobile command vehicle strategem (which is cleverly worded to get round the unable to target an embarked unit rule). All these obviously impact things at a time they are not on the board. Strategems are all worded differently to effect different things your making a common sense argument about what they may target infering from one to another but as stated earlier common sense has no place in the rules and GW may have used a different writter accounting for the difference.

What are the Stygies VIII and the Lucius stratagems? The extra relic stratagem probably shouldn't be used as an example of affecting things off the board since it's affecting things pre-game. Is it a similar thing for the others you mentioned?

U02dah4 wrote:
There is also precedent in the case of units off the board firing on to the board eg in baneblade variants and bastion's although they are granted permission to do so by there transport so it's not unheard of for off the table things to effect the board just rare

But, having a specific mention of things off the board affecting things on the board is a key thing here, suggesting you have to have the specific permission to involve something off the board.

I did summarise if it's in ()you can't infer from it it's for clarification the threads been cited twice in this one I'm not going to repeat other people's arguments.

As to the strategem's one places a unit in reserves one makes a unit appear at the start of the first battler round (not via reserves so you can move and then charge turn 1)

None of the strategems specify you may target a unit not on the battlefield yet all of them do nothing if you can't. You asked for examples of rules targeting things off the battlefield I gave you them. Since none of them specify you may target off the battlefield and all must or they do nothing it's stands to reason others might do the same so target a grey knight unit could target a unit off the board. If pregame strategem's work differently to post start strategem's I have no problem with that if you can highlight a rule showing that if not then targeting via strategem is obviously permitted in at least some cases.

As to the baneblade/bastion no it doesn't imply that at all. They have to specify that because in the specific circumstance the embarked unit rule would normally prevent you firing without specific permission this has no direct baring on having to have it in relation to strategems targeting units in reserve as they are not embarked.

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Unless he's wrong about you being wrong.

It's not a clear cut RAW answer, but it's not a clear cut RAW answer that you do affect them off the board, and something in the rules to use as precedence certainly helps indicate which interpretation is valid.

Well, it would except GW botches writing this kinda stuff too much. Look at FnP abilities. The Avatar of Khaine's SPECIFICALLY says it can be used against Mortal Wounds, but other versions did not. We actually used to debate on here if that mattered. Ultimately, GW said it didn't in a FAQ and they all work on mortal wounds. So specifically mentioning that on the Murder Sword doesn't help us much.

It's almost like the FAQ supersedes RaW? After all they have made several special snowflake rulings that contradict RaW (Pask Orders and Red Grail are two that come to mind).

Yeah, but we're not arguing Murder Sword's RAW, we're talking about whether you can use it's explicit wording as RAI. Obviously, we can't because it sure as heck didn't matter for the FnP issue.

You can use it as precedence to argue what the RAI is (at least until a FAQ comes out and changes everything, like a FAQ ruling saying you can play the stratagem on a unit off the board but only on Thursdays, or on Tuesdays if you pay double the command points).

Normally I'd agree, but not when we have something like the Avatar of Khaine and FnP issue staring us in the face. It's clear that GW doesn't follow something like expressio unius est exclusio alterius and just because one rule explicitly mentions a scenario doesn't mean similar rules that don't mention it can't do it.

Or in other words GW have so many special snowflake rulings you could build a snowman making it hard to infer with clarity

You know throwing around Latiin doesn't make your argument any stronger than if you used English.
The idea of star decisis is inevitable in any game. If there is a precedent then you must show a reason why one rule should be treated differently than the precedent that was set. Thus Res Ipsa Loquiter as far as RAW and RAI goes. (see that didn't make my argument any better either but it does look impressive.)

Well we have pregame stratagems as precedent for targeting things off the battlefield and not needing special permission

And units being embarked and so not on the battlefield requiring explicit permission but with clear reason of the embarked unit rules for this which explains why this is treated differently.

Which brings us back to having precedent and by your own logic you now have to explain why that is different for strategems targeting reserves

My latin is rusty but I believe the phrase is apud vultum tuum

Until you can show me in the rules where it says that you can target anything off the board without using explicit wording that you can do such you can't do it.

I have many games that have less than 8 pages of rules. The page count has nothing to do with whether a rule set is permissive or not. Contrary to your belief (and yes it is a belief/opinion since you can not back it up with an official GW statement saying that it is no longer permissive) the rule set in 40K is permissive.

I've given you half dozen where you have to. By your own logic and fancy latin arguments you have to demonstrate that you can't or else you can. Precedent clearly exists but by all means if you would rather throw the toys out the pram you don't have to accept the conclusion of your own logic.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know throwing around Latiin doesn't make your argument any stronger than if you used English.
The idea of star decisis is inevitable in any game. If there is a precedent then you must show a reason why one rule should be treated differently than the precedent that was set. Thus Res Ipsa Loquiter as far as RAW and RAI goes. (see that didn't make my argument any better either but it does look impressive.)

Uhh, I used the Latin because it was the most appropriate way of expressing the idea. You didn't even use yours correctly. We're not discussing "the decision stands" (stare decisis) because there's no decision here: we're trying to guess a future decision. While res ipsa means "the thing speaks for itself" literally, it's also not appropriate here because it's actually used to describe the idea that if a mistake occurs there's probably negligence by someone, somewhere.

Legal Latin lesson aside, the only precedent we have is in my argument's favor and I've mentioned it several times. As the FnP issue showed, GW's precedent is that a specific rule calling out a specific purpose does not preclude similar rules from fulfilling that purpose despite the lack of specific call out.

The game takes place on the battlefield. Unless told otherwise, stuff happens on the battlefield. That's common bloody sense. All this gland-waving and barking "Prove it! Prove it!" is very silly. You need permission to target stuff not on the battlefield. If you don't have it, you can't do it. And that's RAW, U02dah4. If your argument is "it doesn't say I can't!" then it's a silly argument.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well we have pregame stratagems as precedent for targeting things off the battlefield and not needing special permission

Or at least affecting things not on the board pre-game when there's nothing on the board, so the concept of "off board" being meaningless at that point.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The game takes place on the battlefield. Unless told otherwise, stuff happens on the battlefield. That's common bloody sense. All this gland-waving and barking "Prove it! Prove it!" is very silly. You need permission to target stuff not on the battlefield. If you don't have it, you can't do it. And that's RAW, U02dah4. If your argument is "it doesn't say I can't!" then it's a silly argument.

I hate to repeat myself but 40k is a game it is not real why should a guardsman take up as much room in a transport as a space marine that's not common sense (how do 10 fit anyway there isn't physically enough room in the model) or over watching troops refusing to fire flamers at something 9" away that's not common sense or storm ravens manage to fly effectively in combat (they have the aerodynamic properties of a brick) that lacks common sense 20 conscripts can fit in a bastion but 2 squads of 10 infantry cant? If you start poking holes in any rule breaking common sense then we will be here all year.

Common sense has no place in 40k rules. You have permission to target whatever the stratagem tells you that you can target, there is no rule saying you can't target things not on the battlefield , there is clear precedent for targeting things not on the battlefield and calling an argument silly doesn't make it any less right.

I have permission because the stratagem tells me I may target a grey knight unit that is RaW. That is the only RaW unless you can show me something indicating that it does not give me permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well we have pregame stratagems as precedent for targeting things off the battlefield and not needing special permission

Or at least affecting things not on the board pre-game when there's nothing on the board, so the concept of "off board" being meaningless at that point.

U02dah4 wrote:




While I accept your point that in the case of the pregame stratagems the distinction could be viewed as meaningless the original contention was that stratagems could not target units outside of the board without special permission. Which these stratagems existing disproves. I accept that this tells you nothing about the intention of the others only that from a rules perspective specifying off the battlefield is not a requirement for stratagem targeting. You would therefore need a rule to tell you that you could not either on the stratagem itself or more generally in the rules.

Anythng that indicates pre-game actions would automatically indicate permission to affect things not on the board since nothing is on the board, in fact you don't consider a board at all at that point. Therefore those stratagems disprove noting.

I would agree with you in relation to the before the battle stratagems such as relic based ones however in the case of the Stygies vIII "clandestine infiltration" and Lucius variety's that occur during during deployment by which time there is a battlefield. but do not mention targeting a unit not on the battlefield just a "Stygies VIII unit from your army"

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The game takes place on the battlefield. Unless told otherwise, stuff happens on the battlefield. That's common bloody sense. All this gland-waving and barking "Prove it! Prove it!" is very silly. You need permission to target stuff not on the battlefield. If you don't have it, you can't do it. And that's RAW, U02dah4. If your argument is "it doesn't say I can't!" then it's a silly argument.

I hate to repeat myself but 40k is a game it is not real why should a guardsman take up as much room in a transport as a space marine that's not common sense (how do 10 fit anyway there isn't physically enough room in the model) or over watching troops refusing to fire flamers at something 9" away that's not common sense or storm ravens manage to fly effectively in combat (they have the aerodynamic properties of a brick) that lacks common sense 20 conscripts can fit in a bastion but 2 squads of 10 infantry cant? If you start poking holes in any rule breaking common sense then we will be here all year.

Common sense has no place in 40k rules. You have permission to target whatever the stratagem tells you that you can target, there is no rule saying you can't target things not on the battlefield , there is clear precedent for targeting things not on the battlefield and calling an argument silly doesn't make it any less right.

One of the Tenets of YMDC is don't argue RAW vs HIPWI.
Another is don't bring in real-life comparisons to a game of fantasy space wizards and mutant he-men in armour.
Please go read them dude. They will help you have more productive discussions here and save you some stress.

"Common sense has no place in 40k rules"... oh wow. That's quite a statement. Without common sense and using only RAW people like BCB have shown the rules are unplayable in some areas. As stated before, go read BCB's signature and illuminate yourself as to why pure RAW is borked. He's provided handy hyperlinks.

By saying 'sometimes you need to apply common sense' I am not saying "play it however lolz". Don't be so binary. All players absolutely must apply common sense to find their way through odd rules interactions, to figure out how to interpret some oddly-worded rules, or even to simply fire their guns. Saying otherwise is ridiculous. If you truly believe in All RAW No Modifications then BCB's sig applies... your games won't be much fun.

Back to the topic: you keep hinging on "it doesn't say I can't" as an argument, and as stated before I don't find that argument credible. Omission is not permission.

Whats all this talk about 'targeting' a model for a stratagem?

The rule says 'select' one of your characters. The same way you would select a model to place during deployment, or to be given a relic, or to be the warlord etc.

Its not a psychic power.

Except we are back to there isn't an odd rules interaction till you distort it with "common sense" which you have no reason to do

Have you read those hyperlinks yak face basically dissects BCB arguments and the thread concludes that's he's wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
Except e are back to there isn't an odd rules interaction till you distort it with "common sense" which you have no reason to do

Have you read those hyperlinks yak face basically dissects BCB arguments and the thread concludes that's he's wrong

Stop obfuscating and misdirecting. Stay on topic is a forum rule. As such, please show me in the rule under discussion where it permits you to choose a model not on the table.

On the strategem itself you may target a grey knight unit (no restrictions)

I'm not the one obfuscating

U02dah4 wrote:
On the strategem itself you may target a grey knight unit (no restrictions)

I'm not the one obfuscating

How do you target something not on the board? They don't give you any rules for doing that.