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.

And where does the seeded growths rule directly reference the 3" rule. Note you only need provide the quote containing the 3". The rest of your blurb is irrelevant

You can either quote the statement or you can't and at this point we both no you can't.

Because without that quote your arguing the rule does nothing as any permissive rule overrules it so the standard deployment rules specifying wholey within your deployment zone overule it

Not to mention in other context psychic powers assault weapons etc.. and broken game

And the argument has looped


The crux is you need a statement and one word isn't a statement and never will be so provide a statement - if your next post doesn't include a quote of a relevant statement directly referencing ignoring the 3" rule I will take that as an admission that you acknowledge you are wrong.

Doesn't matter what else you write clear quote including " 3" rule does not apply" or words to that effect and I admit your right anything else includeing the word anywhere or what you can derrive from anywhere and you admit your wrong

“Anywhere means anywhere “

“No it doesn’t”

“Yes it does”

Repeat for 4 pages. Just all accept you could be right or wrong and that there is no consensus. Jeez.

There is reasonably clear consensus except deathreaper.

Maybe nosferatu and poorgravitas however however both of them disappeared from the argument when the flaws in their argument where shown to them. E.g. nosferatu proved anywhere meant anywhere on the board but also proved he had no statement referencing the 3" restriction. However strictly speaking they didnt acknowledge those arguments they just didn't post so I'll take that as an admission they changed their mind but they could have just not looked at the thread.

Once the actual arguments have started pretty much everyone has agreed with one interpretation. Deathreaper is responsible for 90% of his sides arguments

That doesn't balance out with me, Valerie, aash, alextroy, Jnaproductions, jonny hell

While the yes it does no it does format of deathreapers argument makes it seem that way it doesn't mean both cases have equal evidence even if their are two sides


In summary

* we have provided a dictoral definition of a statement- that is not met provably as no quote has been provided and you need a clear phrase referencing the restriction
* applying deathreapers logic reguarding anywhere, the same logic applies to wholey within the deployment zone, as they are identical except referring to a portion rather than the whole battlefield. This makes the 3"restriction redundant in all circumstances obviously absurd - he hasn't been able to explain a difference between the two meaning we are right or you go to the next bullet point
* applying the permissive overuleing restrictions logic breaks the game entirely as it allows you to do many unintended things like firing weapons after advancing or multicasting psychic powers - he acknowledged this then later denied

The case for nosferatu
* anywhere means anywhere and therefore includes all possible interpretations of distance. Therefore despite being one word you have a clear statement that you can go wherever you want ignoreing all restrictions.
*while this logic does break the game you shouldn't actually do things like putting it on top of models or inserting into your opponents .... because that breaks the game despite anywhere giving you permission to do so. Essentially some restrictions do apply like placement having to be on the battlefield (but no reason to differentiate them from the ones being ignored)
* ignoring his reasoning due its lack of evidence means you are ignoring the meaning of evidence which means 6 paragraph statements of specific exemptions not "any place" as the dictionary says

The two arguments are not equal but Nosferatu just writes im right because I'm right so no matter what cogent arguments you bring all he's going to say is yes it does, that is false when factually he can't provide a quote with "3"" directly in the quote which is admission that he's wrong before we get to to the game breaking and he won't even try and address the other bullet points just dismiss them because that's what you do when you have no case.

Just as an atheist here, absence of proof is not = proof of the antithesis of said claim. You cannot say Prove it with evidence to someone's totally subjective claim. If I say I do not believe in god, you don't get to say what proof do you have for that belief. That would break all logic. one does not require "proof" for lack of a belief. I think what we have here is a lack of belief as to the intent of a rule. One person asserts what the rule means, that is a positive claim. That person provided evidence why they think it is so. The next person says I remain unconvinced by your proofs, and still choose to believe otherwise. This whole thing has become an argument born out of WELL THATS NOT HOW I PLAY YOU ARE WRONG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
“Anywhere means anywhere “

“No it doesn’t”

“Yes it does”

Repeat for 4 pages. Just all accept you could be right or wrong and that there is no consensus. Jeez.

Welcome to the YMDC forums, where most of the posts are variations of Na'unh/ya-huh!

Yeah you will get that at times the trick is to sift through the blurb and try and pull out the key points as I did in the astrixes.

If theirs two sides and one side is not open to honestly discussing it will get bogged down. Doesn't mean both sides are equally right or wrong or that consensus isn't achievable just that sometimes you need to look at the evidence for each argument not weigh it by number of times one person says it.

I would say ignoring deathreaper theirs broad consensus in this thread about what the evidence is. Their are two interpretations and one of those interpretations is weaker in evidence than the other and even deathreaper admitted breaks the game that makes the answer clear

But deathreaper will disagree



I think the other problem in this case is that GW have issued an FAQ rule that essentially makes fortifications unplayable (its why I've seen the tourney circuit house rule against it) and people want to be able to use their models giving them a vested interest in trying to find a way around it. I personally think their cool my void shield generator and battle sanctum are amongst my prettiest models but the answer is to house rule with your gaming group/tourney packs not to apply it, not to try and pretend you have a legitimate reason to allow your fortifications while preventing others. most players are open to it and I heard no objections from the Scottish tourney circuit before lockdown its a bad faq. Because what this is really about is people annoyed that they can't play their expensive cool models.

As with all dicussions on this sub, talk with your opponent before hand.

Now as for me, I don't even have time to get through the first chapter of my "These are the terms by which I play 40k" dissertation on rules interpretation, before my opponent leaves the store.

Coming back with fresh eyes, the "argument" against is pick and choosing where to apply its own interpretation. Apply it evenly or not at all and cop to it having been RAI.

If an explicit call out of "ignore X" is required to ignore the 3" restriction, the malignifier (and ALL other forward deployable forts) must remain in your deployment zone.

Anywhere outside 12" of the enemy deployment zone includes your deployment zone after all, just like it includes the 3" restriction, and it certainly doesn't say you can ignore deployment zone rules.

This gak is what you get when you try to pass RAI off as RAW.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Coming back with fresh eyes, the "argument" against is pick and choosing where to apply its own interpretation. Apply it evenly or not at all and cop to it having been RAI.

If an explicit call out of "ignore X" is required to ignore the 3" restriction, the malignifier (and ALL other forward deployable forts) must remain in your deployment zone.

Anywhere outside 12" of the enemy deployment zone includes your deployment zone after all, just like it includes the 3" restriction, and it certainly doesn't say you can ignore deployment zone rules.

This gak is what you get when you try to pass RAI off as RAW.

On that point I think your confused or I've misunderstood you

There is no rule that prevents you deploying outwith your deployment zone so you don't need explicit permission to ignore it.

The normal deployment rules give you permission to deploy wholey within the deployment zone if you are deploying using them. They make no reference to outside the deployment zone or alternative deployment methods.

rules permitting you to deploy outwith your deployment zone are common e.g. scouts reserves deepstrikers.

So to deploy outwith the deployment zone all you need is a rule giving you permission e.g. one saying you can deploy anywhere 12" from the enemy.

This is different to the faq 3" which is a quotable restriction that applies to all units with the fortification battlefield role when they are set up on the battlefield regardless of how or when (unless specifically stated otherwise).

So, to summarize what is needed for U02da4's argument to function:

Ignore FAQ entries that existed before the 3" rule. Ignore FAQ entries that have had other sections modified but are unchanged regarding fort deployment. Ignore that new FAQs post change didn't add a 3" requirement or address it in any way. Ignore units with identical rules. Ignore units with rules that specify different restrictions. Ignore units that specify restrictions matching the BRB in contrast to the malignifier. Ignore the part of the fortification rule that allows for other rules to take precedence.

And now, the creme de la creme: Ignore the WHOLE ASS DEPLOYMENT RULES SECTION for all mission types.

So after a Unicorn comes down to guide each player through the unregulated deployment, a functioning game occurs.

Or you could use the verbatim RaW without any further hand waving and you have a terrain piece that goes where you want and a functioning game.

And now we have the "speaking in the third person" stage of the argument. In the interest of civility "addressing the crowd" is not an argument on YMDC, and can be insulting...

So what faq am I ignoring? Or advocating ignoring I haven't mentioned that at all i genuinely don't understand your point

I certainly don't advocate ignoreing unit restrictions at all so that's just wrong I've been arguing throughout you need to follow them

I don't advocate ignoring rules that state they take precedence at all in fact I've been asking for proof of this

I also don't advocate ignoring the deployment section I've pointed out it behaves identically

Yeah that whole summary was a load of rubbish none of that applies at all or is required to make my argument work and certainly noone has established any of those points


Some rules give you permission to do those things. Other rules modify your permissions and restrict you doing things these apply unless the permission specifically names or exempts itself from the restriction.

All faq brb and codex conform to this without modification

Therefore in relation to fortifications

Any rule giving you permission to deploy whether that be anywhere on the battlefield, wholey within your deployment zone functions subject to relevant restrictions (9"/12" from the enemy (if relevant) 3" from terrain, not ontop of other models or off the board. These restrictions apply unless their is a specific exemption to that restriction) your not ignoring any rule your just following the RAW.

You seem to conflate rules that give you permission with restrictions that prevent you doing something but given you don't evidence any of your points I'm not certain of that

First, any time anything contradicts your position, you claim without evidence that it just doesn't apply. People can go back and read the thread on gnarlmaws, webway gates, faqs, and RAW. They'll see you handwave it away and then claim the opposite is true above. None of the rules comport with your handwaving.

Second, now you want to apply a double standard to restrictions. The deployment rules have no exception clause in-built, but "anywhere" is good enough to ignore this rule. This rule is not permissive, it restricts you to only your zone. The fortification does have an in-built exception, but "anywhere" is no longer acceptable to ignore restrictions.

Again, any time something inconveniently shows you being wrong the. it doesn't apply, or something different applies, or we aren't supposed to use the same rules.

I'm blocking you now and moving on from the thread. There's no arguing with someone to whom nothing is concrete. Hopefully folks get through the whole thing to see why you can deploy anywhere.

Im open to things contradicting me look at the deamons or charging threads were i get contradicted get shown evidence and change my position the difference is they had evidence.

none of those things you listed contradict my position but I don't just dismiss them if it doesn't i say why - although you clearly don't understand so I will waste my breath on this but...

You can read gnarlmores webway Gates etc. They all have no bearing on my position e.g. saying part of the webway rule became redundant when they duplicated it for all fortifications in a later faq doesnt contradict my position

You can apply the principle.

Some rules give you permission to do those things. Other rules modify your permissions and restrict you doing things these apply unless the permission specifically names or exempts itself from the restriction.

They all comport you just dont like the outcome which is not relevant and not proof of a contradiction. They do however often contradict yours when you pick and choose which restrictions to apply.

Anywhere is not an exemption clause so there is no double standard because neither have an exemption clause that requires a statement and anywhere is a word not a statement. it is in fact a double standard to claim anywhere is treated differently from wholly within given neither has an exemption clause (which was why I argued with death reaper that it was a RAI argument about what constitutes a statement and anywhere has no bearing once we established through a dictionary definition that one word wasn't sufficient for a statement)

Given nothing you have presented shows me being wrong or contradicts my position in the slightest its no wonder I don't accept your position while your double standards and flaws in yours show quite clearly

Anywhere includes the set of all distances
This includes the distances 1, 2, 3, 4,.... " from other terrain

Thus it is stated
Thus it is proven

Restricting anywhere is breaking raw.

Anywhere includes the distances no one has argued it doesn't- it is not relevant so repeating it doesn't help.

It needs to state that it is exempted from the 3" rule to be exempted from it and it does not

proven


One word is not a statement by the quoted definition earlier

Proven

If restricting anywhere is breaking raw you could put it on other models - which would be breaking raw - and why your answer doesn't work as you have to pick and choose what restrictions to apply

Where as the alternative definition has no such problems

No, it needs to state otherwise
You're fixated on the term "3" " being present, when that is not a requirement of the rule in question

If the MM rule instead said may be placed within 1" of terrain then by your logic it would not override the 3" rule, because it never says 3"

This of course is not how the rule actually works, as has been proven. By stating it may be placed anywhere, which includes within 3" of trrrain, it has stated otherwise

You remain wrong in RAW.

By the way: what about ism is a logical fallacy. Address the rule in question, which without any ambiguity *states otherwise*.

It needs to state and a statement is not one word as proven

It does not have to say 3" but it has to be a clear phrase excluding the restriction

No because if it said explicitly it could be placed within 1" of the terrain it would have a permissive "phrase" that would meet the criteria of a statement meeting the criteria off otherwise stating and would thus ignore the restriction.

Saying that anywhere is a statement that has been proven is a lie the opposite is true. It is not a statement it is a single word by definition it is not a clear phrase overruleing the restriction

I remain correct in RAW as you have disproved nothing I have said under RAW as you have not addressed the arguments. (Because if you did you would understand why a clear statement that you could place within 1"of terrain was an exemption and anywhere is a word and not a clear statement)

The long and short of it is we provided a dictoral definition of a statement anywhere was proven not to meet it. you have not provided any alternative definition of a statement. You have not proven anywhere is a statement just a word and until you do it is irrelevant. only when you prove it meets the criteria of a statement exempting the restriction does the content become relevant. All you can do is show anywhere refers to any part of the board. That is not a clear statement ignoring specifying ot ignores any restriction.

U02dah4 wrote:
It needs to state and a statement is not one word as proven

It does not have to say 3" but it has to be a clear phrase excluding the restriction

No because if it said explicitly it could be placed within 1" of the terrain it would have a permissive "phrase" that would meet the criteria of a statement meeting the criteria off otherwise stating and would thus ignore the restriction.

Saying that anywhere is a statement that has been proven is a lie the opposite is true. It is not a statement it is a single word by definition it is not a clear phrase overruleing the restriction

I remain correct in RAW as you have disproved nothing I have said under RAW as you have not addressed the arguments. (Because if you did you would understand why a clear statement that you could place within 1"of terrain was an exemption and anywhere is a word and not a clear statement)

The long and short of it is we provided a dictoral definition of a statement anywhere was proven not to meet it. you have not provided any alternative definition of a statement. You have not proven anywhere is a statement just a word and until you do it is irrelevant. only when you prove it meets the criteria of a statement exempting the restriction does the content become relevant. All you can do is show anywhere refers to any part of the board. That is not a clear statement ignoring specifying ot ignores any restriction.

Where do you get this “rule” that it must specifically be a “clear phrase excluding the restriction” from?

Genuine question, provide evidence of that and I’m all in on your side. If not “anywhere” meaning any-where, from the English, anywhere wins.

The restriciton's own words state that the restriction applies "unless otherwise stated"



Stated definition's:


Cambridge English dictionary - to say or write something, especially clearly and carefully

Oxford English Dictionary - Clearly expressed or identified; specified.

Merriam Webster dictionary - set down explicitly

Dictionary.com - explicitly set forth; declared as fact.

Collins (British English) - explicitly formulated or narrated

Collins (American English) - declared, esp. in specific terms; expressed

Which definition of stated would you like -

"Anywhere" is not clearly expressing or specifying, setting down explicitly, explicitly setting forth, explicitly formulated or declared in specific terms. it can't it is one word.

If you have to reason it out, or justify it, or interpet it, infer it or you claim the word is implying it, by covering the board - you are not meeting any of the above criteria for stateing.

Anywhere does refer to the whole board.
it is not "otherwise stateing" that the restriction does not apply.
So the restriction applies.

I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.

U02dah4 wrote:
The restriciton's own words state that the restriction applies "unless otherwise stated"



Stated definition's:


Cambridge English dictionary - to say or write something, especially clearly and carefully

Oxford English Dictionary - Clearly expressed or identified; specified.

Merriam Webster dictionary - set down explicitly

Dictionary.com - explicitly set forth; declared as fact.

Collins (British English) - explicitly formulated or narrated

Collins (American English) - declared, esp. in specific terms; expressed

Which definition of stated would you like -

"Anywhere" is not clearly expressing or specifying, setting down explicitly, explicitly setting forth, explicitly formulated or declared in specific terms. it can't it is one word.

If you have to reason it out, or justify it, or interpet it, infer it or you claim the word is implying it, by covering the board - you are not meeting any of the above criteria for stateing.

Anywhere does refer to the whole board.
it is not "otherwise stateing" that the restriction does not apply.
So the restriction applies.

Sorry not good enough. I think I’m going for that this is unclear until FAQd. Good arguments on both sides but neither clearly wins it. So sort it with your opponent before hand. Sometimes there is no clear answer and this is one of those. I know HIWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.

True but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t ignore that rule.

@kirotheavenger i agree but they don't seem to like it obviously breaks the game as an argument despite being true- so let's settle for it doesn't meet the definition of stated which it obviously doesn’t which ever definition you pick

@ Andy kp you say not good enough I've provided 6 dictoral definitions on each one anywhere does not meet the criteria if your gonna say its not good enough after being provided with the evidence you requested stateing you genuinely wanted to know if their was a case, you need to be specific because its a crystal clear argument. This isn't a case of sometimes theirs no answer

*Anywhere does not meet the criteria for otherwise stated as the RAW requires by the 6 definitions
*Anywhere meeting the definition of stated breaks the game as it grants permission to place models on top of or in models
*The logic behind anywhere breaks the game further as by the same logic advance and fireing/ multi casting psychic power rules don't function
*Requiring a specific statement as the RAW requires does not break the game in anyway

The arguments as have been stated arn't equal




I mean feel free to address any of those points

*Show that anywhere meets any of those 6 definitions of criteria

*Show that you can place your models on top of other models or a reason why anywhere doesn't allow this but does ignore terrain restrictions

*If permission overrides restrictions rather than the other way around demonstrate why advancing prevents firing

*based on the assumption that it is correct that you require a specific exemption - quote any instance where this causes the RAW not to work**

Because currently all 4 key points favour one answer and a vague assertion vigoursly supported is all the evidence for the other. Show those things and the arguments equal if not its one sided

** (Sure in some case people have claimed this is false but no evidence has been provided indicating that is the case only that they don't like the outcome or the circular argument that it is wrong because it doesn't meet their definition of permissive overuleing restrictions)

I'm not convinced by the "it doesn't state otherwise" argument alone.
It clearly states something - that you are able to deploy the Malignifier outside of the enemy deployment zone.
This can be argued, quite easily, to refer to encompass the 3" rule.

However, if you argue that the statement also refers to the 3" rule as a result of stating "anywhere", you must necessarily be arguing that it also allows you to deploy on top of other units. In fact, it would even be referring to placing models on the table.

Therefore, I think it is clear that the Magnifier is only referring to the deployment zone rule. The rule very closely refers to this, allowing a situation which directly contradicts that rule.
However, the Magnifier does not refer very closely to other rules, hence (combined with the situations otherwise created) it should be taken that the Magnifier is not contradicting these other rules.

Yes anywhere 12"from the enemy is permissive and specific about its geographical coverage so yes,

Yes it is not specific with regards to terrain limitations or models so these restrictions apply

im not suggesting the word is extraneous or has no meaning just that it is not a statement with respect to the terrain restriction

The only point I would disagree on is that their is no general deployment rule. Their is no rule that restricts you to deploy in the deployment zone, except a specific restriction if you deploy useing the standard deployment rules. This automatically does not apply to a model deploying by any other means - so they don't need an exemption only permission to deploy by an alternative means.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'm not convinced by the "it doesn't state otherwise" argument alone.
It clearly states something - that you are able to deploy the Malignifier outside of the enemy deployment zone.
This can be argued, quite easily, to refer to encompass the 3" rule.

However, if you argue that the statement also refers to the 3" rule as a result of stating "anywhere", you must necessarily be arguing that it also allows you to deploy on top of other units. In fact, it would even be referring to placing models on the table.

Therefore, I think it is clear that the Magnifier is only referring to the deployment zone rule. The rule very closely refers to this, allowing a situation which directly contradicts that rule.
However, the Magnifier does not refer very closely to other rules, hence (combined with the situations otherwise created) it should be taken that the Magnifier is not contradicting these other rules.

This.

Having read most of the thread, I think U02dah4's interpretation is spot on, the Malignifier is definitely lacking an explicit permission to ignore the 3" rule, "anywhere" is an implicit permission at best.

That said, the whole 3" rule only came to be because of people walling in knights with gnarlmaws using the denizens of the warp stratagem which - you guessed it - allows you to "set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models".

I gotta address the "on to of models" bit. It says to deploy anywhere on the battlefield. The terrain rules (and missions setup) have the battlefield as hills (but seemingly not other terrain) and the space you play on. If you place on a model, this is forbidden as it is not on the battlefield (this also forbids placement on top of non-hill terrain).

So could you put the model inside another piece of terrain? Inside a forest or a ruin?

No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think the fact that taking the gospel interpretation of "anywhere" would allow you to place the Magnifier on top of models should be strong enough evidence that it does not override all the usual rules.

If you put the Magnifier on top of a model it would not be on the battlefield, as there would be a model in the way.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
No, as above, the terrain rules have only hills as terrain that counts as the battlefield

I'm allowed to deep strike blight lord terminators on top of ruins though, who use the same "anywhere" wording.