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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Udah you have been needlessly contentious with everyone in this thread, please stop. You can argue your points, but there is really no need to go personal.

You don't get to claim moral high ground in this, Mr. Kettle.

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

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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...

@ Fezzik
I didn't - a basic point when discussing rules is that you have access to the rules being discussed.

Since you didn't, you have rendered all your contributions (about 8 by my count) to the thread before your last one worthless. Because you cannot possibly judge a complex rules argument about the wording of the rules without the wording. So regardless of what side of an argument you come down on your wrong, not because the answer is wrong, but because your reasoning is not grounded in the rules.

Worthless contributions just take up space and cloud the issue.

That's not a personal comment in that it's not personal to you, I would be making the same comment to anyone that did that in any rules thread.



Also, I haven't approached the thread in hostility - I have countered arguments but I do so in an attempt to get to the right answer that is not the same as being hostile. I haven't insulted people or just told them their wrong without specifying evidence. Contrast that with the responses from the anywhere is anywhere crowd which has been hostile and not addressed the evidence for the most part (largely because the facts don't support their argument). Sure you can call that being contentious but shock discussing the rules sometimes means putting forward contentions supporting with evidence and sticking by them unless that evidence is countered.

The evidence is clear. People persist in advancing assertions without evidence - so I contend them and ask them to address the same points of evidence they have not addressed since the start- and they don't they just make a circular I'm right and your wrong because I'm right and ignore the flaws they can't deal with. So the response will be the same either address the salient points of contention or your response adds nothing to the thread

I mean feel free to address any of those points they are the point none of the anywhere means anywhere crowd have been able to address

1) Show that anywhere meets any of those 6 definitions of criteria

2) 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

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

4) 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

If they can't address 1) they are wrong under RAW if they can address 1) they need to address either 2) and 3) or 4) to be on an equal RAI footing

@JIDMAH
LOL

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get what you are trying to say?

The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.

Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get what you are trying to say?

The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.

Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.

I dont get your point

The FAQ restriction applies to any model with the fortification battlefield role yes

Deployment restrictions apply unless otherwise stated that is clearly part of the restriction

If you cant show anywhere has an unless otherwise stated clause then the restriction applies you can ignore this but not under RAW

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get what you are trying to say?

The fort restriction is a part of anywhere and the argument is that this isn't ignored.

Deployment restrictions are similarly also part of anywhere, don't have an "unless otherwise stated" clause but people are happy enough to use "anywhere" to ignore this.

Gnarlmaw can be deployed anywhere with denizens of the warp, exactly like the malignifier.

GW introduced this rule to specifically prevent people from exploiting gnarlmaws as indestructible roadblocks, so there is no reason to assume that "anywhere" is intended to ignore it.

Gnarlmaw has an inbuilt 1" restriction via FaQ, so no, it cannot deploy anywhere by summoning.

The MM is also destructible, and so I dont think the gnarlmaw logic applies here.

Again, why are we applying different standards to different rules?

Please look up the rules before further commenting on this. Your answer makes no sense.

We shouldn't be but the anywhere means anywhere crowd do - it's one of the reasons they are wrong

However in the gnarlmore special case

The FAQ entry

Change the last sentence of this unit’s description to read:
‘Each Feculent Gnarlmaw in this unit must be set up within
6" of each other, and none can be set up within 1" of any
terrain feature.’

Meets the criteria for otherwise stateing so the 1" applies not the 3" of the miasmic malignifier

On which point.

DENIZENS OF THE WARP

Use this Stratagem during deployment. If you spent 1 CP, set up one of your DAEMON units that has a Power Rating of 8 or less in the warp instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you spent 2 CPs, you can choose a DAEMON unit that has a Power Rating of 9 or more instead. At the end of any of your Movement phases that unit can tear its way into reality – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.

According to the "anywhere" crowd, this allows me ignore both the 1" and 3" rule, because anywhere means anywhere, right?

It features the word anyway so I guess by their logic

However its just as wrong to do so in that instance

The 1" was added to the gnarlmaws entry, it is not a rule with an "unless otherwise stated" exception. When placing the gnarlmaw, you can't break the gnarlmaw's own rules on its datasheet.

You're trying to tell us that "anywhere" isn't good enough to ignore the rule with an exception, but is simultaneously good enough to ignore deployment restrictions that have no inbuilt exceptions.

I'm saying that anywhere is good enough to ignore both, that the gnarlmaw and webway already have built in restrictions on top of anywhere that are otherwise stated.

You have to pretzel the application of "anywhere" to have it make sense with deployment, denizens, and the fortification rule. That's not a problem with my argument that's a problem with yours.

Restrictions standardly apply unless a rule tells you not to apply them or gives you permission to do otherwise

The gnarlmore entry is a restriction it meets the criteria of being otherwise stated in relation to terrain and overrules the 3" restriction because it specifically stays that it is overridden by a rule that states otherwise

ergo it is a 1" restriction

Anywhere is never good enough to ignore a restriction in and of itself, there is no pretzeling it does not overrule 3" restriction in any circumstances it does not overrule 1" restriction


If you apply anywhere means anywhere you pretzel on every restriction because their is no reason to treat anywhere different from wholey within

Yeah, that's not how it works. You claim that "anywhere" allows you to ignore restrictions where you can place models. There have been plenty of counter-examples to prove that this interpretation is wrong, in addition to the clear RAI communicated by the developers for why the 3" distance to nearby terrain was introduced - they don't want you to use terrain to wall off parts of the board.

Either anywhere is anywhere, or it is subject to additional restrictions.

U02dah4's and my interpretation consistently applies restriction like 3" or 1" away from terrain, not top of other models, not on scaleable terrain nor in any other illegal way.

Your argumentation claims that you can randomly ignore one specific restriction, but fails to provide a reason why it cannot ignore other limitations.

Oh, and if the gnarlmaw example is too complicated to understand for you because of the 1" rule added, use a mekboy workshop coming out of a tellyporta instead. Same "anywhere" wording.

If you're going to claim that I'm "randomly" ignoring a rule that starts with "Unless otherwise stated" I don't think there's much point arguing it with you. You clearly aren't reading the fortification rule as it is written. I don't know what you want it to read as, and I frankly don't care.

Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

That is false, it has not been proven, even though you think it has.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?

This thread is about 2 pages too long, and should have been locked already.

Anywhere = anywhere legal (see all other rules regarding legal placement)

Anywhere is not permissive to do anything, just means you can stick it outside your deployment zone if you want and follow all other relevant rules.

Besides the contagion range is plenty to cover objectives, other terrain, and the furnace can be placed to protect the Malignifer. Which makes this unit perfectly playable.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?

You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?

No, he means the mek boy shop tellyporta which launches a bunch of models that become obstacles 9" in front of your models on turn 2. So, things you can move over and don't actually break the game at all.

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

The 6 definitions were not created by me

They were 6 of the most commonly used dictionaries definitions of what the word actually means. Now you can argue that GW used the wrong word. But as far as I am aware GW do not provide their own dictionary. They do however use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to write their rules, so any dictionary should suffice, yet alone 6 of the most commonly used - I also quoted which dictionaries each quote was from so you can look them up online to verify them - Now if you want to quote an alternate definition from a reputable dictionary be my guest, no one has. However you cannot argue that I am making up the meaning of the word and expect us to take your argument seriously. If you just make up the meaning of words sure you can get them to mean whatever you want but if you have to do that your answer has no bearing on the actual rules.

Currently, your argument amounts to - My answer is wrong according to all 6 dictionaries! but I define what the word means and you cant prove those dictionaries define what words mean in the English language. Only GW can. So despite them all saying I'm wrong. Really I'm right and you cant prove otherwise. So are arguments are equal.

Or I'm admitting I'm proven wrong because I can't meet those definitions but I will declare myself the winner and attack the definitions.

LOL

So yes to not apply the 3" restriction it needs to be stated otherwise and anywhere does not meet any of the definitions of stated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?

You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?

It was pointed out that actually, it does count as on the battlefield evidenced by the logic that a cup of tea being put on a coaster being on a table - the cup of tea is still on the table.

Numerous rules such as the chargeing from DS FAQ and aura/special rules that apply only if the character is still on the battlefield were shown to still apply if a character is on terrain like a ruin in a sense the battlefield can be viewed as anywhere within the rectangular space regardless of verticality.

...I feel like I've just watched two teams of zen monks furiously debate over the sound of one buttcheek clapping.

U02dah4 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

The 6 definitions were not created by me

They were 6 of the most commonly used dictionaries definitions of what the word actually means. Now you can argue that GW used the wrong word. But as far as I am aware GW do not provide their own dictionary. They do however use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to write their rules, so any dictionary should suffice, yet alone 6 of the most commonly used - I also quoted which dictionaries each quote was from so you can look them up online to verify them - Now if you want to quote an alternate definition from a reputable dictionary be my guest, no one has. However you cannot argue that I am making up the meaning of the word and expect us to take your argument seriously. If you just make up the meaning of words sure you can get them to mean whatever you want but if you have to do that your answer has no bearing on the actual rules.

Currently, your argument amounts to - My answer is wrong according to all 6 dictionaries! but I define what the word means and you cant prove those dictionaries define what words mean in the English language. Only GW can. So despite them all saying I'm wrong. Really I'm right and you cant prove otherwise. So are arguments are equal.

Or I'm admitting I'm proven wrong because I can't meet those definitions but I will declare myself the winner and attack the definitions.

LOL

So yes to not apply the 3" restriction it needs to be stated otherwise and anywhere does not meet any of the definitions of stated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?

You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?

It was pointed out that actually, it does count as on the battlefield evidenced by the logic that a cup of tea being put on a coaster being on a table - the cup of tea is still on the table.

Numerous rules such as the chargeing from DS FAQ and aura/special rules that apply only if the character is still on the battlefield were shown to still apply if a character is on terrain like a ruin in a sense the battlefield can be viewed as anywhere within the rectangular space regardless of verticality.

Sorry, I was just messing with you. I think 6 pages is enough now.

 doctortom wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Well you are ignoring it because it has been proven anywhere does not meet any of the 6 definitions of stated i mean feel free to point out which one it meets

The 6 definitions have only been presented as the standard by you, not GW.

What about all the example where using this interpretation of "anywhere" clearly breaks the game?

You mean like "on top of another model", which was disproven by pointing out that putting it on top of a model isn't putting it on the battlefield?

It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

Please don't repeat debunked arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
...I feel like I've just watched two teams of zen monks furiously debate over the sound of one buttcheek clapping.

That would make great people flooding YMDC with "LoL, YMDC stoopid, me smart!" exactly what in your metaphor?

This is a forum for discussing rules, if you have a problem with people discussing rules don't read it, and more importantly, don't post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
No, he means the mek boy shop tellyporta which launches a bunch of models that become obstacles 9" in front of your models on turn 2. So, things you can move over and don't actually break the game at all.

So, I'm allowed to deploy the mek worshop balanced on top of two of my battlewagons, correct?

Yeah seconding jidmah here this thread has a lot of wasted space due to

# people complaining at the process of rules discussion (takes up room adds nothing)
# people making a substantial volume of comments then announcing they did not have access to the rules (clouds the thread with worthless opinions that misleads people)
# people trolling the thread "Sorry, I was just messing with you. I think 6 pages is enough now." (I mean just shame on you) (especially as doing so makes the people who have a clearly wrong answer think they have a lot more support than they do)

This is very disappointing as it makes it difficult for people trying to find the correct rules answer - which is the purpose of YMDC thread - to help people.

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

The example of a cup of tea illustrates the point perfectly.
A coaster is not a table. But a cup on a coaster is also on the table.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

A Sacristan Forgeshrine is a model according to its own datasheet and the terrain feature rules. It has the scalable keyword. A space marine captain on top of scalable terrain has been proven to be on the battlefield.
Therefore models can be placed on models (unless specified otherwise) and models which are placed on other models are considered to be on the battlefield.

Or, in other words, you are wrong.