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.
ThatMG wrote: Conclusion: The aircraft rule is only valid in the movement phase.
Thus any model can lock Aircraft outside of said phase in the previous mentioned ways.
This is the raw, an leaves far less issues of "applies to all phases."
The interpretation is
1) "Any kind of move" (in the movement phase, related change. REF: "Page 177 – Movement Phase" [Insert aircraft rules])
vs
2) "Any kind of move" (Any phase)
2) The game can break and stops rules functioning.
1) Works and the rules function, regardless if it is "not thematic."
1: is the obvious way to play. The only reason I see someone prolonging this conversation past the FUNCTIONAL raw at this point is if they have a multi-flyer list and just can't deal with a valid counter/weakness.
Conclusion, you want a cheesy shortcut to deal with flyers because you run a list that can't do so normally - I too can suggest ulterior motives for holding a position. For the record I do not yet have even one assembled, painted, and ready for play flyer. I have a Stormwing formation still sitting in boxes on my project bench, but they're not high on the priority list. I object to backdoor assaulting an Aircraft and snaring them on Suspension of Disbelief grounds, not personal use.
1) "FUNCTIONAL RAW" sounds an awful lot like RAI. Adding words that aren't there, or assuming they're "supposed to be" is RAI. My RAI is you can't snare Aircraft. Your RAW is they can. As long as you want to RAW snare, I'm going to RAW Aircraft. Nobody I know is going to let you RAI the stuff that helps you and RAW the stuff that hurts them. You get to pick one. Either we all RAI in a compromise taking logic into account, or we all RAW. I'm not going to miss charging Aircraft in close combat, shooting Assault Weapons after advancing, or pistols into a within 1". RAW works for me. RAI works for me. Your move.
No, Functional RAW = The rules fuction (regardless if it is intended or not).
Non-Functional RAW = BCB's assault weapons can't shoot if you advance.../Your "all phase" narrative +many others.
You failed at deflecting. Functional > Non-Functional and if you want to force a non-functional wording the "I won't play games with you/Most important rule comes into play."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 14:05:06
You have it backwards. All the rules apply at all times unless the rules state otherwise.
GW does not present the rules in a technical fashion, with how to do things separate from when you are allowed to do them. Instead, they write in a functional flow with the rule appearing the first time you are allowed to use them in the standard flow of play. Thus, movement rules are presented in the Movement Phase section of the rules. This is why they contain multiple rules that apply only to the Movement phase and a rule they applied only to the Charge Phase.
Then tell me where exactly does it say that the AIRCRAFT rule applies to all phases?
It doesnt does it? So its not clear in the slightest what RAW is. That means we have 2 intrepretations of RAW so i will be going with the one that doesnt break the game.
In the part where it DOESN'T say it only applies to one phase. Some parts of the Aircraft rule DOES say only in the movement phase, some parts don't. The parts that don't apply everywhere (or in the specified phase).
No, Functional RAW = The rules fuction (regardless if it is intended or not).
Non-Functional RAW = BCB's assault weapons can't shoot if you advance.../Your "all phase" narrative +many others.
You failed at deflecting.
Once again, you can't even be honest about RAW. RAW is quite literally Rules As Written. You can even hover over the yellow text, and a bubble will tell you this. Functional or Not has nothing to do with RAW. They say exactly what was written, no more and no less. There are one to two more potential Rules As - Rules as Intended - what we assume the rules writers meant but weren't talented enough to convey - and Rules As Applied - which is the more accurate description of RAI - Rules as we think they should and decide for them to work. You failed at special pleading.
By RAW you can't ever fast roll saves. By RAI or RAA - we have enough experience to know when Fast Rolling Saves may make a difference and allow it when we know it doesn't matter. By RAW you can't choose a unit to fire if it advanced, even though the models in the unit can fire with assault weapons. By RAI/RAA we (or most of we) allow units with models with assault weapons to be chosen to fire. Most of the time, we rationalize and justify this by pretending we know what perfect strangers we've never met intended. Sometimes we're honest enough to admit we just don't like the rule and call it a "house rule". Too often some of us care more about winning and try to RAW the stuff that works in our favor, and RAI/RAA the stuff we don't like.
Functional > Non-Functional and if you want to force a non-functional wording the "I won't play games with you/Most important rule comes into play."
What makes you think I'd ask you for another game after being forced into this the first time? As I've said multiple times, this only comes up if you're trying to force the RAW when it suits you, and the RAI when it suits you. I don't want to see people ensnaring Aircraft (or any other RAW abuse). If you're going to deny the RAI/RAA for a quick and cheesy kill, I'm going to deny it for anything else so the playing field is level.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/27 04:45:44
The only people being dishonest and are trying to game advantage are the people bringing up RAI to muddy the waters. Or pushing "all phase rules" narrative.
RAI does not come into the debate when you have functional RAW.
Non functional RAW is when an action can or can't take place because the wording of the rules have broken the game. (From a computational standpoint)
Non-functional RAW is where HIWPI or RAI (speculation) can effect the game.
I don't want to see people ensnaring Aircraft
You played your hand here. What you want does not matter in the context of the rules. The fact remains is that locking Aircraft outside of the movement phase IS a valid way to play the game as it is functional. Your personal opinions does not change this, an would be subject to "An agreement between two players at the start of the game".
Anything more than this is just phycological posturing that has no purpose in this debate.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/08/27 18:18:07
ThatMG wrote: The only people being dishonest and are trying to game advantage are the people bringing up RAI to muddy the waters. Or pushing "all phase rules" narrative.
RAI does not come into the debate when you have functional RAW.
Non functional RAW is when an action can or can't take place because the wording of the rules have broken the game. (From a computational standpoint)
Non-functional RAW is where HIWPI or RAI (speculation) can effect the game.
you mean like ensnaring an airplane several miles up in the air?
I don't want to see people ensnaring Aircraft
You played your hand here. What you want does not matter in the context of the rules. The fact remains is that locking Aircraft outside of the movement phase IS a valid way to play the game as it is functional. Your personal opinions does not change this, an would be subject to "An agreement between two players at the start of the game".
You played your hand here. What you want does not matter in the context of the rules. The fact remains that locking an aircraft inside or outside of the movement phase is prohibited by the rules. Your personal opinions do not change this and would be subject to an agreement between two players at the start of the game.
Anything more than this is just phycological posturing that has no purpose in this debate.
. Anything less than that would be cherry picking the rules that favor you over the ones that don’t.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/29 11:10:17
Can everyone stop trying to chip intellectual lumps off each other and debate civilly?
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Page 57 – Master of Snares
Change this Warlord Trait to read:
‘When an enemy unit (other than a unit that contains a
model with a minimum Move characteristic) within 1" of
this Warlord is chosen to Fall Back, you can roll one D6;
on a 4+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn.’
So, master of snares no longer works on a flyer. Unless the flyer is on its last bracket, where it no longer has a minimum move characteristic
eparedes0785 wrote: I totally expected this outcome. I can't understand how pple defended the opposing view.
I wasnt defending you could kill aircraft with snares. I was defending you could get within 1inch of an aircraft. How the snares rule was written that allowed it to be destroyed on a 4+
Totally expected this FAQ, however i believe this reinforces the view that you can get with 1inch on an AIRCRAFT.
eparedes0785 wrote: I totally expected this outcome. I can't understand how pple defended the opposing view.
I wasnt defending you could kill aircraft with snares. I was defending you could get within 1inch of an aircraft. How the snares rule was written that allowed it to be destroyed on a 4+
Totally expected this FAQ, however i believe this reinforces the view that you can get with 1inch on an AIRCRAFT.
eparedes0785 wrote: I totally expected this outcome. I can't understand how pple defended the opposing view.
the change in the faq confirms that raw was correct aircraft would die if they where effected.
FAQ just now makes it so minimum movement units are not effected.
Nobody said the RAW was incorrect (Some people said it was broken, or tried to add more than there was), or that Aircraft couldn't be affected. The RAW is always "correct" and we stipulated the AIRCRAFT could be affected, just that the only way to INITIATE the required conditions of the ability was if the AIRCRAFT did the moving, not the enemy model. IF an Aicraft moved within 1" of the enemy model, it could have been ensnared (before the FAQ) - but by RAW the enemy model couldn't have moved (and ended) within 1" of the aircraft to apply the effect.
And I think just about everyone expected this outcome or silence.
eparedes0785 wrote: I totally expected this outcome. I can't understand how pple defended the opposing view.
the change in the faq confirms that raw was correct aircraft would die if they where effected.
FAQ just now makes it so minimum movement units are not effected.
Nobody said the RAW was incorrect (Some people said it was broken, or tried to add more than there was), or that Aircraft couldn't be affected. The RAW is always "correct" and we stipulated the AIRCRAFT could be affected, just that the only way to INITIATE the required conditions of the ability was if the AIRCRAFT did the moving, not the enemy model. IF an Aicraft moved within 1" of the enemy model, it could have been ensnared (before the FAQ) - but by RAW the enemy model couldn't have moved (and ended) within 1" of the aircraft to apply the effect.
And I think just about everyone expected this outcome or silence.
Breton, this FAQ supports the idea that you CAN get within 1" of AIRCRAFT. So RAW you can charge and get within 1" of an AIRCRAFT, but master of snares will not work.
Because if you cannot get within 1inch you do not need to this new rule regarding min move on master of snares.
Let me be clear, i never thought RaI was that master of snares worked on aircraft, i thought it was pretty stupid. But RaW written it did and this FAQ supports that as it adds a condition to exempt units with a min move.
Because if you cannot get within 1inch you do not need to this new rule regarding min move on master of snares.
Let me be clear, i never thought RaI was that master of snares worked on aircraft, i thought it was pretty stupid. But RaW written it did and this FAQ supports that as it adds a condition to exempt units with a min move.
So you can ensnare a Valkaryie in hover mode but not one in fly mode.Hm.
Because if you cannot get within 1inch you do not need to this new rule regarding min move on master of snares.
Let me be clear, i never thought RaI was that master of snares worked on aircraft, i thought it was pretty stupid. But RaW written it did and this FAQ supports that as it adds a condition to exempt units with a min move.
So you can ensnare a Valkaryie in hover mode but not one in fly mode.Hm.
Yes, you can ensnare any AIRCRAFT which is in hover mode, or is on its last bracket of the damage table.
Because if you cannot get within 1inch you do not need to this new rule regarding min move on master of snares.
Let me be clear, i never thought RaI was that master of snares worked on aircraft, i thought it was pretty stupid. But RaW written it did and this FAQ supports that as it adds a condition to exempt units with a min move.
By RAW a model that could ensnare could GET within 1", but could not END THEIR MOVE within 1" - or INITIATE the within 1". The Aircraft can move within 1" of the ensnaring model. The ensnaring model cannot move within 1" of the Aircraft. The Ensnaring Model can leave 1" with (just) an Aircraft without falling back, the Aircraft cannot (probably) leave 1" with an ensnaring model (without falling back).
This neither supports nor contradicts the need to FAQ the ensnare ability. At no time was an Aircraft within 1" of an ensaring model deemed completely impossible - just unlikely - so a rule proving it was possible doesn't contradict the claim it's unlikely.
You can't argue some rule says more than it does, or some FAQ clears up more than it does - Or that other people claimed more than they did. Because then you end up thinking you proved your case, when you didn't and lose even more ground.
All you did was prove GW thinks its possible for the two models to be within 1" - which has already been stipulated/established - the AIRCRAFT can move within 1" the ensnaring model cannot. By RAW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/03 09:04:10
At people who still think you can't get within 1" of a flyer.
Please read the airborne rule
Mostly blah not important the important part is.
Enemy units can only make close combat attacks against this model if they can FLY.
Ergo it is possible within the rules for a non FLY unit to end up within 1". However won't be able to attack in melee as the above rule accounts for that situation.
The Aircraft FAQ is a Movement Phase clarification.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/07 15:43:57
ThatMG wrote: At people who still think you can't get within 1" of a flyer.
Please read the airborne rule
Mostly blah not important the important part is.
Enemy units can only make close combat attacks against this model if they can FLY.
Ergo it is possible within the rules for a non FLY unit to end up within 1". However won't be able to attack in melee as the above rule accounts for that situation.
The Aircraft FAQ is a Movement Phase clarification.
Nobody said it was impossible for a non-fly model to end up within 1" of the aircraft. As we've said multiple times here. If you're not going to argue against what we pointed out, changing what we've said and quoted to something you CAN argue against, why are you here?
We said:
By RAW They CAN end up within 1" - but the Aircraft has to initiate the proximity - the enemy model cannot. The AIRCRAFT model can in theory end any kind of move within 1" of a non-Aircraft. A Non-Aircraft can NOT end any kind of move within 1" of an Aircraft.
Making attacks is not the same thing as ending within 1". Being within 1" is another requirement.
What you're doing is called a straw man. You're changing what we said to something easier for you to argue with.
ThatMG wrote: At people who still think you can't get within 1" of a flyer.
Please read the airborne rule
Mostly blah not important the important part is.
Enemy units can only make close combat attacks against this model if they can FLY.
Ergo it is possible within the rules for a non FLY unit to end up within 1". However won't be able to attack in melee as the above rule accounts for that situation.
The Aircraft FAQ is a Movement Phase clarification.
Nobody said it was impossible for a non-fly model to end up within 1" of the aircraft. As we've said multiple times here. If you're not going to argue against what we pointed out, changing what we've said and quoted to something you CAN argue against, why are you here?
We said:
By RAW They CAN end up within 1" - but the Aircraft has to initiate the proximity - the enemy model cannot. The AIRCRAFT model can in theory end any kind of move within 1" of a non-Aircraft. A Non-Aircraft can NOT end any kind of move within 1" of an Aircraft.
Making attacks is not the same thing as ending within 1". Being within 1" is another requirement.
What you're doing is called a straw man. You're changing what we said to something easier for you to argue with.
Relevant parts of your statements are in bold and not in good faith, at this point you are a troll.
You and anyone who keeps posting you can't pile in and/or consolidate into a Aircraft is wrong and has been proven multiple times.
The above wording in my post clearly has a situation in that a non-flyer got within 1." The method doesn't matter outside of Movement Phase (Aircraft FAQ limits it in that phase only.) You are just back peddling on things I was never talking about cause your "Side" lost the argument.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2019/09/08 20:20:45
and not in good faith, at this point you are a troll.
