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.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Did the same person write the Sisters Beta as the Chaos Codex? If so, you could assume the use of different wording was intentional.

AFAIK they don't put the authors names on those things anymore, so who knows.

We'll know what GW thinks once the FAQ is up, until then any RAI is pure speculation tbh.

Experience indicates that GW does not exercise the level of consistency in rules writing to assume any differences in wording are intended to denote differences in application of the rules.

For examples, some Wound ignoring uses note both normal wounds and Mortal Wounds can be ignored while others do not. However GW notes that you can ignore Mortal Wounds even if not specifically noted.

Right. RAI, the rule probably isn't intended to allow you to fight twice despite not being within 1" of the enemy.

Unfortunately, RAW is quite clear, despite some users asserting that the adverb "twice" somehow is able to change the meaning of the verb it is modifying, "chosen"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. RAI, the rule probably isn't intended to allow you to fight twice despite not being within 1" of the enemy.

Unfortunately, RAW is quite clear, despite some users asserting that the adverb "twice" somehow is able to change the meaning of the verb it is modifying, "chosen"

The RAW is clear, and your arguments have ignored rules.

It does not change the meaning of "chosen" It changed the fact that you can only be chosen once. That is what the rule modifies. I makes a unit able to be "chosen" twice instead of once, that is all it does.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. RAI, the rule probably isn't intended to allow you to fight twice despite not being within 1" of the enemy.

Unfortunately, RAW is quite clear, despite some users asserting that the adverb "twice" somehow is able to change the meaning of the verb it is modifying, "chosen"

The RAW is clear, and your arguments have ignored rules.

It does not change the meaning of "chosen" It changed the fact that you can only be chosen once. That is what the rule modifies. I makes a unit able to be "chosen" twice instead of once, that is all it does.

Except it just makes you able to be chosen twice. Period. The sentence ends. Not "instead of once" like the other fight twice rules have. To say "instead of once" is adding both words and conditions to the rule that are not present nor even evidenced in the text.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. RAI, the rule probably isn't intended to allow you to fight twice despite not being within 1" of the enemy.

Unfortunately, RAW is quite clear, despite some users asserting that the adverb "twice" somehow is able to change the meaning of the verb it is modifying, "chosen"

The RAW is clear, and your arguments have ignored rules.

It does not change the meaning of "chosen" It changed the fact that you can only be chosen once. That is what the rule modifies. I makes a unit able to be "chosen" twice instead of once, that is all it does.

Except it just makes you able to be chosen twice. Period. The sentence ends. Not "instead of once" like the other fight twice rules have. To say "instead of once" is adding both words and conditions to the rule that are not present nor even evidenced in the text.

It does not need to say "instead of once" because ALL units can only be selected once... This rule over-rides that to can be selected twice. That is the only thing that The Passion overrides.

The Passion overrides the "can be chosen [but only once]" part of the BRB rules. That is it. it does not over-ride the can only be selected if they charged or are within 1 inch of an enemy. Since it does not say that it ignores the "can only be selected if they charged or are within 1 inch of an enemy" it does not over-ride that rule.

To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Why is it disingenuous to choose the unit when my rule tells me I can choose the unit?

Especially in a permissive rule set where the codex rule that tells me I can select the unit is a more specific rule than anything you will ever find in the BRB?

My rule tells me I can select the unit. Twice, even, though that is by no means mandatory.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is it disingenuous to choose the unit when my rule tells me I can choose the unit?

Because if you try to choose a unit that has not charged and is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit, you are breaking the rules.

Especially in a permissive rule set where the codex rule that tells me I can select the unit is a more specific rule than anything you will ever find in the BRB?

It is a permissive rules set, and you are allowed to choose the unit twice. but you still cant choose the unit at all if they are not eligible to be chosen because you would break rules if you try to choose a unit that has not charged and is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit...

My rule tells me I can select the unit. Twice, even, though that is by no means mandatory.

Yes, this ONLY over-rides the rule about only being able to select a unit once... this does not over-ride the rule about having to charge/be within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

How are you not understanding this?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is it disingenuous to choose the unit when my rule tells me I can choose the unit?

Because if you try to choose a unit that has not charged and is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit, you are breaking the rules.

That's your interpretation. It's not disingenious to have a different interpretation.

How are you not understanding this?

How are you not understanding that we read it differently than you do, especially after this was explained in detail?

I have permission to do a thing two times.
This gives me permission to do that thing.

You're adding words and meaning to what is written in the Act of Faith and in the core rules to justify your interpretation.

I don't see why you're arguing so vehemently here, when pretty much everyone agrees this needs an FAQ, and that we shouldn't play it as "you get to activate twice, whatever the circumstances are" until that FAQ arrives.

Let's just wait for the FAQ. RAW are after all pretty pointless, because the game should be played the way it was meant to be played by the designers. Once that hits you might even get some internet points for having the right interpretation, and if that makes you feel better (and it's a FAQ entry instead of an errata) you may even claim to have been right all along.

nekooni wrote:


You're adding words and meaning to what is written in the Act of Faith and in the core rules to justify your interpretation.

You too, are adding words. Does it say anything about ineligible models? Nope. Therefore you are also adding your own interpretation to include models that can't initially be chosen.

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is it disingenuous to choose the unit when my rule tells me I can choose the unit?

Because if you try to choose a unit that has not charged and is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit, you are breaking the rules.

That's your interpretation.

No, that is the RaW.

How are you not understanding that we read it differently than you do, especially after this was explained in detail?

Because your reading ignores the rules.

I have permission to do a thing two times.
This gives me permission to do that thing.

Yes, but you still need to follow the other rules.

You're adding words and meaning to what is written in the Act of Faith and in the core rules to justify your interpretation.

No, I am just following all the rules, your argument ignores some.

 DeathReaper wrote:

How are you not understanding this?

Pick up your copy of Chapter Approved 2018.

Turn to page 90.

Read the ability Desperate For Redemption from the Penitent Engine.

That's what only being able to fight twice instead of once and not ignoring the BRB selection process looks like.

That's from the same Sisters' Beta Codex as The Passion.

PuppetSoul wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How are you not understanding this?

Pick up your copy of Chapter Approved 2018.

Turn to page 90.

Read the ability Desperate For Redemption from the Penitent Engine.

That's what only being able to fight twice instead of once and not ignoring the BRB selection process looks like.

That's from the same Sisters' Beta Codex as The Passion.

That rule has absolutely nothing to do with the rules for "The Passion"

 DeathReaper wrote:

PuppetSoul wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How are you not understanding this?

Pick up your copy of Chapter Approved 2018.

Turn to page 90.

Read the ability Desperate For Redemption from the Penitent Engine.

That's what only being able to fight twice instead of once and not ignoring the BRB selection process looks like.

That's from the same Sisters' Beta Codex as The Passion.

That rule has absolutely nothing to do with the rules for "The Passion"

We get it, it's not your wallet.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is it disingenuous to choose the unit when my rule tells me I can choose the unit?

Especially in a permissive rule set where the codex rule that tells me I can select the unit is a more specific rule than anything you will ever find in the BRB?

My rule tells me I can select the unit. Twice, even, though that is by no means mandatory.

Your missing the part of the permissive ruleset concept of restriction vs permission. You have three restrictions in the Fight phase to deal with, your rule only addresses one of those. Without those other permissions, those rules still apply.

Fragile wrote:

Your missing the part of the permissive ruleset concept of restriction vs permission. You have three restrictions in the Fight phase to deal with, your rule only addresses one of those. Without those other permissions, those rules still apply.

There are only two, and it addresses both.

1. You can choose a unit to fight if it charged or is within 1" of an enemy unit.

The Passion sidesteps this rule with "This unit can be chosen to fight". It does not matter that the BRB does not make it eligible to fight: the ability allows it to be chosen, so we don't need the BRB to allow it to be chosen. The ability does not request that we go check with the BRB to see if choosing the unit is legal: it says explicitly that we can choose it.

2. You can only choose a unit once.

This is overruled by "Twice".



There are two instances of double-activation mechanics in the Sisters' Beta Codex, both were changed from their original forms in the Index:

Penitent Engines, whose ability says "this unit can fight twice in each fight phase, instead of only once."

and The Passion, whose ability says "this unit can be chosen to fight twice in this phase."

Penitent Engines were changed to where they do not immediately fight again regardless of whether or not they satisfy the requirements to be chosen for combat, to wording that checks for both activations.
The Passion was changed from wording that previously required to be within 1" of an enemy unit to be targeted, to wording that doesn't.
Why did they not use the Penitent Engine's wording as The Passion, and why did they remove the restrictions from it during the update?

There is no doubt in my mind that they actually intended for The Passion to work RAW.
But I do doubt that they understood the full implication of what was possible because it does.

Good lord there’s some stretching and bending going on.

“Chosen to fight twice” can’t be separated up into two separate permissions. It’s just permission to fight twice but you need to be eligible to fight in the first place.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good lord there’s some stretching and bending going on.

“Chosen to fight twice” can’t be separated up into two separate permissions. It’s just permission to fight twice but you need to be eligible to fight in the first place.

Its literally permission to be chosen twice, that's the difference to eg Berserkers

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good lord there’s some stretching and bending going on.

“Chosen to fight twice” can’t be separated up into two separate permissions. It’s just permission to fight twice but you need to be eligible to fight in the first place.

Its literally permission to be chosen twice, that's the difference to eg Berserkers

Which still requires you to be eligible to fight, in order to be chosen.

Fragile wrote:

Which still requires you to be eligible to fight, in order to be chosen.

Again, the BRB determines eligibility to fight with the phrase "can be chosen". It does not narrow down from everyone starting as being eligible to be chosen, and then falling through a series of limiters like Kerplunk. Everyone starts as ineligible, and then units become eligible because they meet the requirements of the BRB's "can be chosen".

The Passion also grants the targeted unit "can be chosen", thus making the unit eligible to fight because you don't need to meet the BRB "can be chosen" eligibility requirements anymore: The Passion has already made it eligible.

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good lord there’s some stretching and bending going on.

“Chosen to fight twice” can’t be separated up into two separate permissions. It’s just permission to fight twice but you need to be eligible to fight in the first place.

Its literally permission to be chosen twice, that's the difference to eg Berserkers

Which still requires you to be eligible to fight, in order to be chosen.

Where in "The Passion" (or a rule more specific than a single Act of Faith in a single Acts of Faith system in a single army) does it say you have to be eligible to fight to be chosen?

Because the Passion gives me permission to choose, inherently overriding any restrictions that are less specific (which is what happens when a specific permission comes into conflict with a general restriction in a permissive rulesset).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Where in "The Passion" (or a rule more specific than a single Act of Faith in a single Acts of Faith system in a single army) does it say you have to be eligible to fight to be chosen?

The basic rules say that and it is not over-ridden by anything in The Passion...

Because the Passion gives me permission to choose, inherently overriding any restrictions that are less specific (which is what happens when a specific permission comes into conflict with a general restriction in a permissive rulesset).

Incorrect, The Passion only over-rides the being able to select a unit once part of the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Where in "The Passion" (or a rule more specific than a single Act of Faith in a single Acts of Faith system in a single army) does it say you have to be eligible to fight to be chosen?

The basic rules say that and it is not over-ridden by anything in The Passion...

Because the Passion gives me permission to choose, inherently overriding any restrictions that are less specific (which is what happens when a specific permission comes into conflict with a general restriction in a permissive rulesset).

Incorrect, The Passion only over-rides the being able to select a unit once part of the rules.

Reading this thread is a headache, I'm not sure how you can try to mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard.

The Core Rule Book uses the word Chosen when discussing the eligibility of which units can fight. Not every unit can be chosen, only ones which meet certain criteria.

The Passion, and nearly all other Acts of Faith, have no caveat about who you can use them on. Feel free to reread the sisters Codex, there isn't a single line about it.

The Passion uses the exact same wording as the Core Rule Book. Both the AoF and the Rule Book use the word Chosen, and we already know specific overrules general or else stratagems like Honour The Chapter wouldn't work. We can see by looking at another unit in the same Codex, the Penitent Engine, that different wording is used when it comes to a unit that can be chosen to fight but only instead of once.

Pakman184 wrote:
[
Reading this thread is a headache, I'm not sure how you can try to mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard..

And we say the same about you. Your completely fixated on chosen when the operative word is Twice. Your ignoring the entirety of the sentence and the context of the rule. You can make it mean anything when you do that.

But at this point, this is going in circles and should just be locked.

I have not "mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard." My arguments have broke no rule. can not say the same about the other side of the argument.

You can use "The Passion, and nearly all other Acts of Faith" but if they do not qualify for being chosen then you can not actually choose the unit to fight.

You can use The Passion on any unit though it just wont do anything on a unit that has not charged or is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

Specific does overrule general, The Passion specifically overrules the general rule about only being able to be chosen once. it does not overrule the within 1 inch or the must have charged rules though.

The Penitent Engine rules have no bearing on The Passion.

Fragile wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
[
Reading this thread is a headache, I'm not sure how you can try to mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard..

And we say the same about you. Your completely fixated on chosen when the operative word is Twice. Your ignoring the entirety of the sentence and the context of the rule. You can make it mean anything when you do that.

But at this point, this is going in circles and should just be locked.

Let me spell it out for you again, because something seems to have slipped by.

The entire context of the ability is that "a unit can be chosen to fight twice". That's all there is to it. That unit can fight twice. If they unit otherwise couldn't fight, it now can do so twice.

If you want to look at how it should work in the way you're imagining it to, look at the Penitent Engine. It says "This unit can fight twice, instead of once". Both of them are in the same codex, and if they were supposed to do the same thing they would have been worded the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not "mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard." My arguments have broke no rule. can not say the same about the other side of the argument.

You can use "The Passion, and nearly all other Acts of Faith" but if they do not qualify for being chosen then you can not actually choose the unit to fight.

You can use The Passion on any unit though it just wont do anything on a unit that has not charged or is not within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

Specific does overrule general, The Passion specifically overrules the general rule about only being able to be chosen once. it does not overrule the within 1 inch or the must have charged rules though.

The Penitent Engine rules have no bearing on The Passion.

See, now you're willingly ignoring evidence to back up your faulty position. How sad.

The Penitent Engine is relevant because the wording of it's ability is what you're pretending The Passion does. The Penitent Engine's ability says "This unit can fight twice in each Fight phase, instead of only once.". The Passion says "the selected unit can be chosen to fight with twice in that phase." Both of them are in the same codex and if both of them were supposed to do the same thing they would be worded the same.

You can indeed choose a unit in the fight phase after using The Passion because it literally says "The selected unit can be chosen" and when a unit can be chosen to fight, it must fight by the rules of the BRB.

Pakman184 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
[
Reading this thread is a headache, I'm not sure how you can try to mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard..

And we say the same about you. Your completely fixated on chosen when the operative word is Twice. Your ignoring the entirety of the sentence and the context of the rule. You can make it mean anything when you do that.

But at this point, this is going in circles and should just be locked.

Let me spell it out for you again, because something seems to have slipped by.

The entire context of the ability is that "a unit can be chosen to fight twice". That's all there is to it. That unit can fight twice. If the unit could fight, it now can do so twice.

If you want to look at how it should work in the way you're imagining it to, look at the Penitent Engine. It says "This unit can fight twice, instead of once". Both of them are in the same codex, and if they were supposed to do the same thing they would have been worded the same.

FTFY

Fragile wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
[
Reading this thread is a headache, I'm not sure how you can try to mental gymnastic your way around written rules so hard..

And we say the same about you. Your completely fixated on chosen when the operative word is Twice. Your ignoring the entirety of the sentence and the context of the rule. You can make it mean anything when you do that.

But at this point, this is going in circles and should just be locked.

Let me spell it out for you again, because something seems to have slipped by.

The entire context of the ability is that "a unit can be chosen to fight twice". That's all there is to it. That unit can fight twice. If the unit could fight, it now can do so twice.

If you want to look at how it should work in the way you're imagining it to, look at the Penitent Engine. It says "This unit can fight twice, instead of once". Both of them are in the same codex, and if they were supposed to do the same thing they would have been worded the same.

FTFY

You're just wrong, there is no way around it.

The rule says "Chose To Fight Twice." There is no other caveat to it. If being able to fight was a requirement, it would be written like the Penitent Engine's ability which you're so willfully ignoring.

His arguments are not wrong.

Your side has not been able to show anything that says it ignores the restrictions on being able to choose a unit to fight. The rule says "Chose To Fight Twice." That is not bypassing the restrictions on having to have charged or having to be within 1 inch of an enemy unit no matter how much you want to claim "Chose To Fight Twice." bypasses them, they ONLY bypass the [A unit can only be chosen to fight once] restriction. That is it, no permissions to ignore anything else only the only fight once restriction.

Your arguments ignore the rules.

There are plenty of same effect / different wording rules in 8th. The syntax on the Penitent Engine in no way proves this to be anything other than permission to fight fwice instead of once, if you’re eligible to fight in the first place. Two different sentences can have the same meaning. Would that GW had decided on some standard wording for effects before going copy/paste crazy, but they didn’t, and for the most part we’ve coped ok for 18months.

I urge people to write to GW if they think this rule is supposed to grant special permission to fight even if ineligible; not only is this rule in a Beta Codex that they want feedback on, they may also add any errata to the ‘warranty period FAQ’, that is likely behind the usual two week cycle because of Christmas and New Year. They can tighten up the wording and problem solved, either in FAQ or isn’t the full Codex.

Believing this to work even when not within 1” seems to be fishing for 12” of free moment, IMHO (Pile In + Consolidate x2). Patently not the intent, nor the RAW as I read it.