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.

Cut out the insults and digs at other users.


They do not help either one's own arguments or the thread in general.

Again what assumption

@type40

If you have a problem with my RAW argument please provide evidence you can not take from a single disipline

Where is it written that the tome is considered to be taking the power? If there was the second answer might be RAW depending on the wording.

I am saying that is not stated as noone has stated it. if not the second answer remains subjective you could interpret it that way or not. I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been stated exists. It just proves the second argument is RAI not RAW.

U02dah4 wrote:

No one of those arguments is always valid that is demonstrated according to the rules as written therefore it is RAW Noone is suggesting you cant pick from one disipline

One of those items is potentially valid under the RAW but is also potentially wrong. Whether you choose to apply it is, therefore, a matter of RAI. Thats why I consider it to be a RAI argument.We are not arguing if the interpretation exists or is valid only whether it is appropriate to apply it and that is the definition of RAI. It's why I say the argument is RAI not that the argument is wrong

A pure RAW argument is better than one that is RAI and subjective

You don't seem to understand that it's not a RAW vs RAI argument, but an argument of two interpretations of the RAW. The rule was written sloppily enough so that we don't know if "any discipline it has access to" means literally any of the disciplines the Librarian can choose from (one interpretation of RAW) or that it still has the limitation of only being able to choose another power from the one discipline it has already chosen from (another interpretation of RAW). In fact, your interpretation could be considered as much RAI as the other interpretation,so you really should not be referring to it as a RAW vs RAI argument. You are using RAI in a format nobody else uses in our normal debates here, so that is why claiming it's a RAW vs RAI debate could upset people. It's conflicting interpretations of RAW, not RAW vs RAI. It happens sometimes (especially in GW rules).

And, it's a more stringent vs less stringent interpretation of RAW that's being argued about, not necessarily a "better" argument vs a "poorer" argument. And it's certainly not that one argument is "subjective", your interpretation is just as subjective by denying options that GW might have thought that people would "of course" understand and avail themselves of. Just because you can follow the more stringent argument 100% of the time doesn't make it the "better argument" or might it "right"; the other argument can be right, and all you are doing is closing off possibilities you can't follow with the more stringent argument. Once again, since there are conflicting interpretations of RAW, check with your opponent beforehand if he has the same interpretation as you.

That the tome can take from a single disipline is raw noone contests the option


The argument over whether the tome can pick from a separate displine is open to interpretation depending on how you read it that is also raw noone is contesting that there are two interpretations.

The argument that is subjective is which of those interpretations you apply.

An argument over which of two interpretations to apply is by definition an argument that boils down to which is intended RAI or HIWPI

I have never said one is better or poorer only RAW or RAI. I have never said one is more stringent or less im not even sure what that would mean in the context .

If you want further proof that the argument is RAI read your own.

Notice how you stated
"When you say your interpretation is just as subjective by denying options that GW might have thought that people would "of course" understand and avail themselves of. "

Really read that. Is that an argument about the content of the rule as it is written or is the subject of your statement about GW's intentionality because that sounds like an intentionality based argument to me.

(Also read the answer that comes after this post is that about intention and HIWPI)

You then conclude with "since there are conflicting interpretations of RAW, check with your opponent beforehand if he has the same interpretation as you." Again not a RAW argument or even a RAI argument but a HIWPI one

I would also go back to my first statement and say that I have maintained from the start that I thought it was GW intention to allow the tome to let you take from either disipline nothing anyone has said has changed my view on that. However I acknowledge that is an argument based on my interpretation of GW's intention not the rules as written.

However I come back to we know RAW the tome can take from a single disipline no question we don't know RAW whether it can take from multiple disiplines and we can argue the RAI till the cows come home over whether it should and not have a certain answer.

The default position for 40k is not to do something you cannot prove that you have permission to do. By following only the RAW part but not the RAI part you do this. If you follow the RAI part because of the subjectivity you put yourself in the position of possible following the rules and possibly breaking them and being unable to prove that to your opponent. Which is why pure RAW is a better answer than the RAI.

In addition

If we don't apply the RAI interpretation that you can - the game functions and we potentially disadvantage ourselves so

If we apply the rai interpretation that you can - the game functions but we potentially disadvantage our opponent.

I would argue its more appropriate to risk disadvantage yourself than your opponent due to sportsmanship but that is a hiwpi argument

I'm pretty sure it's intended to give you access to (say, a Phobos White Scars Librarian) Obscuration, Librarius, and the White Scars one.

Not sure on how the RAW exactly parses, but HIWPI is that you get your normal picks from one discipline, then one extra from any you can pick from.

U02dah4 wrote:
(Many lines over one thing)

Dude, I'm just saying stop calling it a RAW vs RAI situation because it's not, it's a RAW vs RAW situtation with two different interpretations of RAW. It's not RAW vs RAI, at least in the manner known on the forum. RAI implies that it isn't necessarily RAW. Despite your claims, your interpretation is RAI as much as the the other interpretation, as you interpret it that you can't choose from another discipline. So stop calling it RAW vs RAI.

We are not disagreeing that the RAW interpretations exist

The argument is a RAI and HIWPI one as demonstrated by the last 3 answer.

Yes I agree RAI implies it isn't RAW that's because the argument isn't RAW

The decision over whether to stick to the pure RAW answer of just allowing one disipline which noone contests or the second RAW interpretation of allowing a second disipline isn't RAW. You will find no quote proving how you should resolve it its about interpretation.

The criticism you level at me at the end again proves my point

"Despite your claims, your interpretation is RAI as much as the the other interpretation, as you interpret it that you can't choose from another discipline."

Your not claiming my argument is RAW your stating my interpretation is RAI thus proving the argument is a RAI argument.

The reason as I said before it is RAW vs RAI

Which ever interpretation you pick you have permission for the tome to pick from the same disipline. There's no RAI in relation to that part. That makes it RAW.

RAI you may have permission to pick a second or you may not based on interpretation which ever option you pick is not based on pure RAW because as you have stated and I have agreed the RAW has two interpretations

If you stick to only what is pure RAW you will break no rules.

If you start giving yourself extra permissions out of your subjective interpretation about which RAW is correct you might if the other interpretation is correct.

Therefore one course of action is clear and has no subjective parts (RAW)

and the other course of action contains parts that are subject to interpretation where we could be doing things that are incorrect (this is not RAW it only might be RAW) and arguments in favour of it mediate that uncertainty with intention making it a RAI argument. (Just read the answers most go back to intention

Because one is always right and one is only possibly right these arguments arnt equal as usual you won't go wrong with the RAW because an answer that is always right is better than one that could be wrong

RAW vs RAI

Apparently there's no point in asking for anything related to common sense from you. The RAW can be interpreted multiple ways, so that means there's 2 interpretations of RAW. There is no productive conversation to have if you're going to say one is RAW and one is only RAI. Trying to frame an argument about differing interpretations of RAW as a RAW vs RAI argument is dishonest and you arguing in bad faith. My criticism isn't about which argument is "right" as either could be as an interpretation of RAW. My argument is purely with you reframing it as something it is not, but you're not even willing to acknowledge that. I was merely trying to get you to stop calling it RAW vs RAI because it isn't. If you can't even do that, it's worthless trying to have a conversation with you.

U02dah4 wrote:
We are not disagreeing that the RAW interpretations exist

The argument is a RAI and HIWPI one as demonstrated by the last 3 answer.

Yes I agree RAI implies it isn't RAW that's because the argument isn't RAW

The decision over whether to stick to the pure RAW answer of just allowing one disipline which noone contests or the second RAW interpretation of allowing a second disipline isn't RAW. You will find no quote proving how you should resolve it its about interpretation.

The criticism you level at me at the end again proves my point

"Despite your claims, your interpretation is RAI as much as the the other interpretation, as you interpret it that you can't choose from another discipline."

Your not claiming my argument is RAW your stating my interpretation is RAI thus proving the argument is a RAI argument.

The reason as I said before it is RAW vs RAI

Which ever interpretation you pick you have permission for the tome to pick from the same disipline. There's no RAI in relation to that part. That makes it RAW.

RAI you may have permission to pick a second or you may not based on interpretation which ever option you pick is not based on pure RAW because as you have stated and I have agreed the RAW has two interpretations

If you stick to only what is pure RAW you will break no rules.

If you start giving yourself extra permissions out of your subjective interpretation about which RAW is correct you might if the other interpretation is correct.

Therefore one course of action is clear and has no subjective parts (RAW)

and the other course of action contains parts that are subject to interpretation where we could be doing things that are incorrect (this is not RAW it only might be RAW) and arguments in favour of it mediate that uncertainty with intention making it a RAI argument. (Just read the answers most go back to intention

Because one is always right and one is only possibly right these arguments arnt equal as usual you won't go wrong with the RAW because an answer that is always right is better than one that could be wrong

RAW vs RAI

LOL ... he can't even parse the RAW of the three words "(R)ules (A)s (W)ritten" with out adding extra context XD !!

Its called supporting an argument - you know that thing you said I didn't do

Evidence does not equal a bunch of random context you make up so you can declare yourself correct.

 doctortom wrote:
Apparently there's no point in asking for anything related to common sense from you. The RAW can be interpreted multiple ways, so that means there's 2 interpretations of RAW. There is no productive conversation to have if you're going to say one is RAW and one is only RAI. Trying to frame an argument about differing interpretations of RAW as a RAW vs RAI argument is dishonest and you arguing in bad faith. My criticism isn't about which argument is "right" as either could be as an interpretation of RAW. My argument is purely with you reframing it as something it is not, but you're not even willing to acknowledge that. I was merely trying to get you to stop calling it RAW vs RAI because it isn't. If you can't even do that, it's worthless trying to have a conversation with you.

OK so if you don't like it expressed as RAW vs RAI

how about

one argument is not subjective in anyway and following it means you will never violate the games rules your only limiting your own options without being required to do so.

Vs

One argument is highly subjective as the rules giving you permission to do so are ambiguous and as such following it means you have a 50% chance of cheating your opponent by breaking the games rules so advocating it means forming an argument based on intention.

Is the framing more to your taste if you don't want RAW VS RAI because they still don't feel even close to equal

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Apparently there's no point in asking for anything related to common sense from you. The RAW can be interpreted multiple ways, so that means there's 2 interpretations of RAW. There is no productive conversation to have if you're going to say one is RAW and one is only RAI. Trying to frame an argument about differing interpretations of RAW as a RAW vs RAI argument is dishonest and you arguing in bad faith. My criticism isn't about which argument is "right" as either could be as an interpretation of RAW. My argument is purely with you reframing it as something it is not, but you're not even willing to acknowledge that. I was merely trying to get you to stop calling it RAW vs RAI because it isn't. If you can't even do that, it's worthless trying to have a conversation with you.

OK so if you don't like it expressed as RAW vs RAI

how about

one argument is not subjective in anyway and following it means you will never violate the games rules your only limiting your own options without being required to do so.

Vs

One argument is highly subjective as the rules giving you permission to do so are ambiguous and as such following it means you have a 50% chance of cheating your opponent by breaking the games rules so advocating it means forming an argument based on intention.

Is the framing more to your taste if you don't want RAW VS RAI because they still don't feel even close to equal

No, because saying "one argument is not subjective in any way" is not correct. It's as subective as the other way, even if it is the more stringent option (as I explained above) as your way still have a 50% chance of cheating your opponent by denying him opportunities the rule under question allows him. You had a disingenous argument and are still trying to force things to look like your way is right and the other isn't, rather than admitting that either way could be right. It's still a bad faith argument you are making.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Apparently there's no point in asking for anything related to common sense from you. The RAW can be interpreted multiple ways, so that means there's 2 interpretations of RAW. There is no productive conversation to have if you're going to say one is RAW and one is only RAI. Trying to frame an argument about differing interpretations of RAW as a RAW vs RAI argument is dishonest and you arguing in bad faith. My criticism isn't about which argument is "right" as either could be as an interpretation of RAW. My argument is purely with you reframing it as something it is not, but you're not even willing to acknowledge that. I was merely trying to get you to stop calling it RAW vs RAI because it isn't. If you can't even do that, it's worthless trying to have a conversation with you.

OK so if you don't like it expressed as RAW vs RAI

how about

one argument is not subjective in anyway and following it means you will never violate the games rules your only limiting your own options without being required to do so.

Vs

One argument is highly subjective as the rules giving you permission to do so are ambiguous and as such following it means you have a 50% chance of cheating your opponent by breaking the games rules so advocating it means forming an argument based on intention.

Is the framing more to your taste if you don't want RAW VS RAI because they still don't feel even close to equal

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction. This is a schrodinger's. You can not know the answer unless an answer is actually provided.
You really do not realize that forcing your opponent to not have access to all disciplines is you making a RAI decision on what the RAW says ... right ? you get that you are advocating for people to "play it safe and just follow the instructions that can't be misinterpreted" and by doing that you are making an interpretation of the unclear wording. You are making a stance on how that wording should be played... even though it is unclear... Do you really not get this ? You don't get to justify this without any evidence and claim everyone else needs the evidence that you are wrong. You need to acknowledge that AS WRITTEN you have no idea what GW wants you to do and by making a decision to do it one way or the other you are making an interpretation until you have express RAW to tell you to do it one way or another.

Like,,, do you really not get this ? really ?

Never mind. I am outi. I will never use the tome or play with somebody using it in the forseeable future.

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:
Never mind. I am outi. I will never use the tome or play with somebody using it in the forseeable future.

Don't do that, just talk with your opponent beforehand about which way the two of you want to handle it, then things will be fine. If you find out you support picking from any discipline you have, and your opponent, like U02dah4 insists that it can only be from the one discipline they chose for their other powers, then either dice for it or don't take it then. If you get into a tournament, they probably already have an answer to how they handle it. Of course, if your opponent isn't even willing to dice for it it might be a sign you wouldn't want to play a game with him anyway.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"

No because while both interpretations have an equal chance of being right that part of the argument is not important

What is is that they do not result in equally negative outcomes when you are wrong. One does and one doesnt.

If you have only taken from a single discipline and you could have taken from more than one you have not violated the rules and as such you have not disadvantaged your opponent.

If you have taken from more than one discipline and you couldn't you have violated the rules and disadvantaged your opponent.

that is not equal even if the odds of being correct are the same. Breaking the rules to gain an advantage over your opponent is definitely a worse outcome.

put it this way

If you flip a coin and get it right and I give you £5 vs you flip a coin and get it wrong and you give me £5 is it equally worth you takeing flip (the odds are the same the outcome isn't)

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:
Never mind. I am outi. I will never use the tome or play with somebody using it in the forseeable future.

Don't do that, just talk with your opponent beforehand about which way the two of you want to handle it, then things will be fine. If you find out you support picking from any discipline you have, and your opponent, like U02dah4 insists that it can only be from the one discipline they chose for their other powers, then either dice for it or don't take it then. If you get into a tournament, they probably already have an answer to how they handle it. Of course, if your opponent isn't even willing to dice for it it might be a sign you wouldn't want to play a game with him anyway.

No. I have no itension of using the tome I am grabbing other SW stuff. And my opponent is a ork.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"

Yes, I can totally see what he is trying to say but even adding any kind of percent or bias at all is not a RAW argument, it is an addition of context. It is completely egregious to make argumentation like this and then demand others provide evidence against his assumptions... This is what I was trying to point out before, it is impossible to provide proof that his assumptions are incorrect. When our argument is that "there is nothing that says you should do it the way you are assuming" we can not point to a rule that says that. Then no mater what evidence you do provide he can say "that doesn't prove my assumption wrong." Our argument is that a rule towards his assumption does not exist... this is why I keep telling him that it is impossible for us to prove, with evidence. GW isn't in the habit of writing restrictions and bands on the random assumptions some guy on the internet chooses to have

This isn't the first time he has made arguments like that (p.s. in our previous thread, it was nice to discuss with you and Jidmah because you guys wern't making bad faith arguments, you guys engage in constructive discourse [even though we can be snappy sometimes with each other] but this is type of argumentation goes no where. I didn't mean to get into the philosophical debate on absence of evidence argumentation with you before but it was precisely to point out that it is a bad faith argument to try demand proof or evidence when our argument is that "no where in the rules it says to do it the way you are assuming we should." we can not provide evidence towards the lack of existence of rules, they are either there or not.

 Niiai wrote:
Never mind. I am outi. I will never use the tome or play with somebody using it in the forseeable future.

again you don't need to be that severe just use it and volunterily only pick from one disipline no one will object to that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Never mind. I am outi. I will never use the tome or play with somebody using it in the forseeable future.

again you don't need to be that severe just use it and volunterily only pick from one disipline no one will object to that

at type40 what are we at now 6-7 posts no comments on the topic and just digs at me very constructive

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"

No because while both interpretations have an equal chance of being right that part of the argument is not important

wrong, one answer is 100% right and one is 0% right and you have no idea which one

What is is that they do not result in equally negative outcomes when you are wrong. One does and one doesnt.

negative for whom ? you or your opponent ? they are either cheating you into an advantage or you are cheating them out of an ability.

If you have only taken from a single discipline and you could have taken from more than one you have not violated the rules and as such you have not disadvantaged your opponent.

yes, but you have forced the player to have disadvantaged themselves because of your interpretations

If you have taken from more than one discipline and you couldn't you have violated the rules and disadvantaged your opponent.

see above

that is not equal even if the odds of being correct are the same either way

the odds of being correct are not equal and in both cases someone is being cheated

If you flip a coin and get it right and I give you £5 vs you flip a coin and get it wrong and you give me £5 is it equally worth you takeing flip (the odds are the same the outcome isn't)

This isn't a coin flip, the rules were written in order to be played a certain way. There IS a correct way to play them but we don't know what that is. Also, because warhammer is a game you play with someone else, the worth of who gets to give the 5$ and who takes the 5$ entirely depends on who you are in that interaction.

You are biased, subjective and are making an interpretation with no RAW evidence, that is all there is too it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

at type40 what are we at now 6-7 posts no comments on the topic and just digs at me

Me pointing out that you are parsing the language and rules incorrectly, telling you that you are being biased, pointing out you have no evidence for you stance and asking you if you get what people are saying to you is not taking digs at you. I stopped calling you a house plant a long time ago. Sorry about that by the way, it was uncalled for. I wont call you a house plant anymore.

Well, since there are additional words in the rule in the form of "select an additional power from any discipline" compared with "select an additional power" is at least disingenuous and at worst bad faith to claim additional wording as no bearing.

 Type40 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

LOL "is this framing better then me not changing my position at all XD"

BTW do you have and written evidence that it is 50% ? where did you pull that statistic out from ? You have no idea what GW meant here, there is no percent chance in either direction.

It looks to me like he is saying since there are two RAW interpretations, either one has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, if you accept that, then loading it up with claims like "cheating your opponent" is highly misleading as he did not acknowledge the same 50% chance for his position to be cheating the opponent. That seems a dishonest way to argue it, much like claiming it as a RAW vs RAI argument, rather that "the RAW's so screwed up it can support either side"

No because while both interpretations have an equal chance of being right that part of the argument is not important

wrong, one answer is 100% right and one is 0% right and you have no idea which one

What is is that they do not result in equally negative outcomes when you are wrong. One does and one doesnt.

negative for whom ? you or your opponent ? they are either cheating you into an advantage or you are cheating them out of an ability.

If you have only taken from a single discipline and you could have taken from more than one you have not violated the rules and as such you have not disadvantaged your opponent.

yes, but you have forced the player to have disadvantaged themselves because of your interpretations

If you have taken from more than one discipline and you couldn't you have violated the rules and disadvantaged your opponent.

see above

that is not equal even if the odds of being correct are the same either way

the odds of being correct are not equal and in both cases someone is being cheated

If you flip a coin and get it right and I give you £5 vs you flip a coin and get it wrong and you give me £5 is it equally worth you takeing flip (the odds are the same the outcome isn't)

This isn't a coin flip, the rules were written in order to be played a certain way. Also, because warhammer is a game you play with someone else, the worth of who gets to give the 5$ and who takes the 5$ entirely depends on who you are in that interaction.

You are biased, subjective and are making an interpretation with no RAW evidence, that is all there is too it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

at type40 what are we at now 6-7 posts no comments on the topic and just digs at me

Me pointing out that you are parsing the language and rules incorrectly, telling you that you are being biased, pointing out you have no evidence for you stance and asking you if you get what people are saying to you is not taking digs at you. I stopped calling you a house plant a long time ago. Sorry about that by the way, it was uncalled for. I wont call you a house plant anymore.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Well, since there are additional words in the rule in the form of "select an additional power from any discipline" compared with "select an additional power" is at least disingenuous and at worst bad faith to claim additional wording as no bearing.

That's not quite what it says, you left out an important point.

From the 1st post in the thread:

"Tome of Malcador, page 109:
LIBRARIAN model only. The bearer knows one additional psychic power from any discipline it has access to."

The question is whether you get to take an additional power from any of the disciplines you had access to before choosing a discipline, or choosing a power from whatever discipline you chose (as, according to the supplements you are limited in access to the one discipline you chose from as it states all powers come from that discipline, it's the only one you have access to at that point.

yes i would argue on either interpretation the tome lets you pick either. The problem is under one interpretation the librarian has to pick the same powers as the tome.

 Cybtroll wrote:
A psyker have access to multiple discipline, but when choose his powers have to get them all from the same list.
The Tome allow to select an additional power with a specific bespoken restriction, "any discipline he has access to". It's explicitly different than "an additional power".

So, does he retain access to the discipline he isn't currently using? Yes he does, the rule that blocks him doesn't have anything to do with his access to the discipline, but limits only his selection of powers.
Powers are different from disciplines.

Does the Tome follow the same restriction? No, because it's not a psyker that is selecting power, it's a Relic granting a special effects.
If the Relic rule was "pick an additional power" then you would follow all restriction for selecting power. Since it explicitly say something different, "pick one between any discipline available"... Well, you get it, you pick one between any discipline available. "Any" in this case is even a further explicit reinforcement of the concept.

Any modification to what is or not available that is deducted from a sub-restriction about power and not discipline ("all powers have to be from the same list") is an improper deduction... that rules do not support.

This is a really well written argument. If i'm the TO, i'm accepting this reasoning. That said, I would prefer for clarity on GW's part since there is dissent amongst us in this thread and there are decent arguments on both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:

No. I have no itension of using the tome I am grabbing other SW stuff. And my opponent is a ork.

So maybe just read the thread instead of arguing in it

 Marmatag wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
A psyker have access to multiple discipline, but when choose his powers have to get them all from the same list.
The Tome allow to select an additional power with a specific bespoken restriction, "any discipline he has access to". It's explicitly different than "an additional power".

So, does he retain access to the discipline he isn't currently using? Yes he does, the rule that blocks him doesn't have anything to do with his access to the discipline, but limits only his selection of powers.
Powers are different from disciplines.

Does the Tome follow the same restriction? No, because it's not a psyker that is selecting power, it's a Relic granting a special effects.
If the Relic rule was "pick an additional power" then you would follow all restriction for selecting power. Since it explicitly say something different, "pick one between any discipline available"... Well, you get it, you pick one between any discipline available. "Any" in this case is even a further explicit reinforcement of the concept.

Any modification to what is or not available that is deducted from a sub-restriction about power and not discipline ("all powers have to be from the same list") is an improper deduction... that rules do not support.

This is a really well written argument. If i'm the TO, i'm accepting this reasoning. That said, I would prefer for clarity on GW's part since there is dissent amongst us in this thread and there are decent arguments on both sides.

Except" all of their psychic powers from the Tempestas Discipline" the key phrase being all and is equally valid if the tome selects a different then the all has been violated. Theirs no clear answer.

so in otherwords which ever one you pick you have a 50% chance of being right - so not salient

No,,, that's not how that works. one answer is 100% correct, one is 0% correct. The rules team wrote the rule knowing one way was right. You don't know which one it is. This is not the same as 50/50 chance, at all.

No because the person picking the relic is the one making the decision. Your opponent isn't forcing you to pick the relic. When you pick it and choose to limit yourself to one discipline you lose a potential advantage but you are doing that to yourself and not breaking a rule. When you take from another discipline there is a 50% chance you have gained an unfair advantage over an opponent by your action. In neither scenario is your opponent cheating you because they had no agency in the decision. you as the player picking the relic risked disadvantaging yourself or you risked cheating them.

See above about the 50% situation. And you, by applying a restriction that is not supported by the rules on your opponent, have now cheated. This isn't a one way street. You as the player enforcing the restriction has taken the agency to disadvantage your opponent with an extra restriction. Your perspective is bias and subjective.

No only a player with agency can cheat in one case you are voluntarily disadvantageing yourself you are not cheating as you are not breaking a rule. In the other case, you are or at least risk doing.

Both someone using the rule and someone enforcing a restriction have agency. Your logic is biased and flawed because you refuse to acknowledge alternative perspectives as being valid.

I have stated this was a RAI argument as a RAW one is not possible feel free to actually read the thread where people complained at me stateing the argument was RAI. Rai arguments are all subject to bias.
I will also accept the one big biased assumption that I am making in this interpretation which is that Cheating my opponent is a worse outcome than voluntarily disadvantaging myself.

LOL ok your going to pretend you didn't screech about how your perspective was RAW for 20+ posts and you didn't conclude that your perspective was the only valid one because "yours was the only one that didnt rely on interpretation of intention" which it clearly did XD. And either way you have no written evidence to support anything you are claiming.

Honestly, I can't keep doing this with you... your bias, stubbornness and subjectivity is just way to aggravating and has been riling me up for days. If you really can't understand the things people are trying to explain to you after all of this then I am not a skilled enough person to teach it to you.

Good luck with life, and I really hope I never have to play against someone who can't understand when a position is subjective.
The nice thing about 40k is generally you can pick your opponents .

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
(Many lines over one thing)

Dude, I'm just saying stop calling it a RAW vs RAI situation because it's not, it's a RAW vs RAW situtation with two different interpretations of RAW. It's not RAW vs RAI, at least in the manner known on the forum. RAI implies that it isn't necessarily RAW. Despite your claims, your interpretation is RAI as much as the the other interpretation, as you interpret it that you can't choose from another discipline. So stop calling it RAW vs RAI.

Indeed. Is every thread destined for slow, argumentative, insult-laden deaths right now? Like I’ve said so many times to that other guy, you can’t just add “RAW” to whatever hot take you prefer and magically win. Disingenuous arguing fills up threads and adds nothing of value.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
(Many lines over one thing)

Dude, I'm just saying stop calling it a RAW vs RAI situation because it's not, it's a RAW vs RAW situtation with two different interpretations of RAW. It's not RAW vs RAI, at least in the manner known on the forum. RAI implies that it isn't necessarily RAW. Despite your claims, your interpretation is RAI as much as the the other interpretation, as you interpret it that you can't choose from another discipline. So stop calling it RAW vs RAI.

Indeed. Is every thread destined for slow, argumentative, insult-laden deaths right now? Like I’ve said so many times to that other guy, you can’t just add “RAW” to whatever hot take you prefer and magically win. Disingenuous arguing fills up threads and adds nothing of value.

I know I have some alternative takes sometimes on these forums. but it's hard to argue for anything in YMDC when one person is actually engaged in discourse with you and another person is slinging bad faith arguments and deliberately misinterpreting/misrepresenting your arguments. It just becomes a mess of some people responding to bad argumentation, some responding legitimately and just confusion for whomever is looking for an answer about a rules questions.

I apologize for all the times I get snippy or rude though. I really do try to demonstrate my examples, logic and positions as well as possible and I do try to concede when it is clear that I am incorrect. Sorry for my part in propagating the page bloat round here.