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.

U02dah4 wrote:
1 saying something is wrong without evidence to support that is not an argument

2 if you have evidence as you claim present it, if not all you have is an assertion not an argument

3 Well done your getting it - anywhere means anywhere .... unless another rule specifically restricts this, which in the context their is

I gave you evidence... The rule says "anywhere" You need something to counter that, which you can't because "anywhere" means anywhere, and not anywhere except within 3 inches of this other thing.

"anywhere" over-rides the restriction because it says "anywhere".

"anywhere" is pretty specific on where it can deploy, and over rides restrictions of can't.

So in otherwords you don't have any evidence just the assertion and the circular argument that your right because your right and since your right the other argument must be wrong.

You also have no answer to why that assertion should be treatedly differently to all the other permissive rules that don't overrule their restrictions.

If can overrules can't without a specific exemption why are any fortifications effected by the restriction as they all have some rule telling them where they can deploy wholey within is just as specific as anywhere

Why can guns not fire when they advance they all have a rule that says you can fire guns

Why can you not manifest all psychic powers multiple times there's a rule that gives you permission to manifest psychic powers.

I have shown evidence, you are ignoring what "anywhere" means.

"anywhere" gives an exception to any other restrictions. It does not need to call out every restriction by name since "anywhere" covers everything.

It means nothing without a context and you refuse to address the context because the second you do your argument doesn't work

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have shown evidence, you are ignoring what "anywhere" means.

"anywhere" gives an exception to any other restrictions. It does not need to call out every restriction by name since "anywhere" covers everything.

So when you say anywhere means "anywhere" you mean it can be placed?:

On top of other models

On top of other terrain pieces

Only partially on the table

I ask because those are all restrictions to placing models and you're saying "anywhere" removes all restrictions.

Indeed anywhere should include in the middle of the neighbouring tables game

Ah so when it says anywhere, and is a more specific rule than the general rule, they didn't mean anywhere? Gotcha.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so when it says anywhere, and is a more specific rule than the general rule, they didn't mean anywhere? Gotcha.

So what rules is it allowed to override?

As said before...

 alextroy wrote:

On top of other models

On top of other terrain pieces

Only partially on the table

So they wrote a rule with no reason?
Gotcha.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So they wrote a rule with no reason?
Gotcha.

I mean, this is GW. Are you really shocked that they'd write a poorly thought-out rule?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So they wrote a rule with no reason?
Gotcha.

Not the first time.

I'll just follow the rule saying "anywhere" ,, which is more specific (as it applies to this model alone) than the rule for deploying fortifications in general.

Yeah thats not how rules work

Otherwise I will ignore the general -1 for firing through dense terrain on any unit with a +1 to hit

As I would Any general negative
You don't get to pick and choose

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'll just follow the rule saying "anywhere" ,, which is more specific (as it applies to this model alone) than the rule for deploying fortifications in general.

So can you place it on top of other models?
Can you place it overhanging the table?

Those are both "anywhere".

The fortification restriction is “when setting up” unless “otherwise stated”. The malignifier then says “when you set up this model”.

Contrast this with the webway gate that also states “anywhere” but then goes on to further restrict placement to more than 3” from other terrain features.

Garlmaws are a great example of without any restrictions, with some but different, and with the normal restrictionsl:

They can similarly be placed anywhere BUT ONLY WHEN SUMMONED because that’s what the summon rule tells you to do. You aren’t following the fortification placement rules, you’re following the otherwise stated rules in the Daemonic Ritual rule.

Gnarlmaws placed with Slimux cannot be placed within 1” of other terrain features, as that’s what is otherwise stated for the setup of that fortification under the Slimux rules.

Gnarlmaws placed regularly during deployment have no otherwise stated rules and have to be outside of 3”.

It can be placed anywhere by RAW and in comparing the rules to other forward-deployable fortifications it also comports with RAI.

The faq restriction is not part of the standard fortification deployment rules (because they don't exist you just deploy as any model) it is explicit that it applies whenever a fortification is set up not if it is set up during deployment its clear that it applies to reserves summons etc



No gnarlmores can't be placed anywhere they can be summoned but are still subject to the 3" from terrain restriction as they also have no exemption

As to the webway that datasheet was written before the faq and has the same restriction twice no other datasheet to my knowledge has it and it has no bearing on the faq restriction that it would be restricted if the faq didn't apply

In what whey does that interpretation comport to RAW your ignoring the RAW to do so because your ignore restrictions without explicit permission.

You want to tell a TO that “anywhere” doesn’t actually mean that then have fun.

There are many ways that GW has laid out forward deployment of terrain and one restriction. The restriction is modified by the fortifications deployment rules. This is not evenly applied across all factions but it is also RAW.

So can you place it on top of another model?

Unlike the fortification rule, I'm fairly certain there's not an "unless otherwise stated" stipulation on that rule.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So can you place it on top of another model?

Of course not, as on top of another model is not on the board. It still has to be on the board (on the terrain within the battlefield).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So can you place it on top of another model?

Of course not, as on top of another model is not on the board. It still has to be on the board (on the terrain within the battlefield).

And where does it say that? "Anywhere" remove all normal deployment restrictions afterall, so why not the rule requiring it to be on the board?

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So can you place it on top of another model?

Of course not, as on top of another model is not on the board. It still has to be on the board (on the terrain within the battlefield).

And where does it say that? "Anywhere" remove all normal deployment restrictions afterall, so why not the rule requiring it to be on the board?

Because of the context of the rules. The "Anywhere" is referring to the battlefield. Because if it didn't the game would not be playable.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So can you place it on top of another model?

Maybe? But that doesn't alter that this rule is more specific, and does "otherwise state" an allowance to be placed anywhere within 3"

What about ism is a fallacy addresss this and consider only this issue. Then debate the consequence - but gain agreement here first

It can be placed within 3". This is proven.

@deathreaper I thought by your definition the context didn't matter

So you can pick and choose which restrictions you feel are appropriate and ignore those you don't like with no explanation as to why those are valid and those are not

Sure some restrictions break the game if ignored but plenty don't.

Ignoreing the 3"restriction doesn't break the game it just gives you an unfair advantage.

Still noone has been able to say why anywhere allows you to ignore 3"but wholey within the deployment zone doesnt or why following the same logic on restrictions means advanceing doesnt prevents you firing weapons and you can cast unlimited psychic powers and about 20 other problems

@ nosferatu1001
I'm not sure you understand what proof is - You haven't engaged with the counter arguments and so far you haven't made a full argument let alone a proof

What is proven is their is a rule that prevents models being placed 3" from terrain

That rule is proven to apply to all models with the fortification battlefield role which the miasmic magnifier has and is therefore subject to

Their is no specific exemption referencing that 3" rule in the case of the miasmic magnifier

Thats all that has been proven those three things

We then have the two interpretations the first an assertion that you should follow the above rules because their the rules as written (game functions)

We have the counter assertion the word anywhere gives you permission to ignore 3"rule because anywhere means anywhere so ignores all restrictions and that even though it doesnt reference or mention the 3" rule it ignores it. However...

unless you have a reason why anywhere is different from all the other permissive words/clauses we have situation where for that to be true all restrictions are null/void so as others say nothing stops you putting your terrain on other terrain or on other models or on another board entirely because the definition of a battlefield is a restriction. (If they are the same 3"rule never applies to any model)

The only alternative is your picking and choosing which rules to apply to gain a competative advantage

So if you want to prove you need to explain why anywhere is different to another permissive sentence such as wholey within in a way that can be clearly applied under raw to all restrictions so they stay in place because if you can't my -1D dreadnought will under the same rule ignore its minimum restriction and refuse take any damage from 1D weapons

If you cannot we have two assertion one that functions that you don't like and one that either breaks the game/or is openly cheating (picking which rules to apply to gain a competative advantage advantage) That seems about as far from a proof as you can get

Because if your choice is a functioning game, a broken game or a cheat im going with the functioning game

The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.

You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.

They did not.

It is your interpretation of RAI to add the restriction that isn't there but that isn't RAW.

RAW, malignifier otherwise states anywhere.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.

You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.

GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

Raw it states anywhere RAW that doesn't reference the 3" rule so doesnt over rule it. In order to otherwise state you need to reference the thing your counter-stateing otherwise you only have permission not a counter of the restriction.

The thing your calling a strawman is not a strawman its the central point wrong with your argument. You recognise it as ridiculous straight away - which it is its ' reductio ad absurdem ' but you have been unable to specify why a rule like anywhere ignores that restriction and not others and why other rules such as wholey within are not equally exempted. Since you can't differentiate from the clearly absurd consequences your answer is wrong or atleast breaks the game.

As to the gate the datasheet predated the faq it has no bearing

 alextroy wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.

You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.

GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.

Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.

But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.

You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.

GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.

Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.

But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?

Where does it state that you can ignore other rules?

Not "where does it maybe kinda imply you can ignore other rules," but where does it STATE that you can ignore other rules?

Notably, the Webway Gate predates 9th edition. There wasn't a universal rule stating that terrain and fortifications had to be 3" apart back then.

Edit: Also, does every rule apply unless it states it has exceptions?

Do the core shooting rules give an exception for Engaged models, or models that Advanced? Because if they don't, by your logic, you cannot shoot after advancing with Assault weapons, or in close combat with Pistols.

 JNAProductions wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The "place on other models and doesn't result in a functioning game" is a great strawman to blow over but doesn't add anything here. Placement on other models doesn't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause. It always applies.

You have a different interpretation of the rules that is not what is literally printed as RAW. GW has previously, via Webway Gate, shown that they will make this rule continue to specify the 3" restriction.

GW including that restriction on Webway Gate in no way removes it from Miasmic Malignifier by its absence. As they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

It’s cute to quote about absence in this example while ignoring the word “anywhere”.

Fortification rules say you do X unless other stated. Malignifier otherwise states.

But I guess that’s just too complicated for this forum?

Where does it state that you can ignore other rules?

Not "where does it maybe kinda imply you can ignore other rules," but where does it STATE that you can ignore other rules?

Notably, the Webway Gate predates 9th edition. There wasn't a universal rule stating that terrain and fortifications had to be 3" apart back then.

Edit: Also, does every rule apply unless it states it has exceptions?

Do the core shooting rules give an exception for Engaged models, or models that Advanced? Because if they don't, by your logic, you cannot shoot after advancing with Assault weapons, or in close combat with Pistols.

Jesus Christ, the fortification rules literally include the words “unless otherwise stated”.

None of these other strawmen arguments have a similar clause.

I get that a lot of people in this thread don’t think that “anywhere” is explicit enough. It is still the rule as written. Gnarlmaw’s were FAQd to have to be 1” from other terrain pieces. That FAQ does literally nothing under the belief that a rule must specifically state “this rule is operating under the clause of “otherwise states” in the fortification rules blurb”.

The rules as written don’t care that you believe that there must be a specific call out. The rules as written are already “otherwise stated”.