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.

But it doesn't. It never mentions overriding that restriction or any other restriction, therefore it doesn't state otherwise. It merely gives an area you can set up in. Or does "anywhere" also allow you to set up a Sporocyst on Impassible Terrain that is in that legal area? Or on top of other units in that legal area? Those are "anywhere" after all, even if other rules says you can't place models in those locations.

 alextroy wrote:
But it doesn't. It never mentions overriding that restriction or any other restriction, therefore it doesn't state otherwise. It merely gives an area you can set up in. Or does "anywhere" also allow you to set up a Sporocyst on Impassible Terrain that is in that legal area? Or on top of other units in that legal area? Those are "anywhere" after all, even if other rules says you can't place models in those locations.

But it does mention overriding that restriction, because it says "anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."

Is "anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."... "within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills)."?

A: Yes, anywhere on the battlefield includes "within 3" of any other terrain feature". thus it states otherwise by virtue of giving permission of "anywhere on the battlefield"...

Anywhere literally includes "within 3" of any other terrain feature".

As above.

Not going to keep going round in circles. It states otherwise. Done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above.

Not going to keep going round in circles. It states otherwise. Done.

Happy to agree to disagree, this is not a RAW argument its a matter of semantic interpretation. To me it does not state otherwise. Whichever intent GW had, it could be more explicit.

But yeah, no point going around in circles on it, so I'm done too.

 Stux wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above.

Not going to keep going round in circles. It states otherwise. Done.

Happy to agree to disagree, this is not a RAW argument its a matter of semantic interpretation. To me it does not state otherwise. Whichever intent GW had, it could be more explicit.

But yeah, no point going around in circles on it, so I'm done too.

But "anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models." Literally states otherwise.

Stux - it's a matter of you adding "explicitly" into the rule, when it doesn't exist and nor is it implied.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stux - it's a matter of you adding "explicitly" into the rule, when it doesn't exist and nor is it implied.

To me it is implied. To me you are adding "if there are any alternative deployment rules". But again, circles.

 Stux wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stux - it's a matter of you adding "explicitly" into the rule, when it doesn't exist and nor is it implied.

To me it is implied. To me you are adding "if there are any alternative deployment rules". But again, circles.

The Fortification rules say "Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. Unless otherwise stated..."

The sporocyst rules say "it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models." These rules literally state otherwise in regards to the 3 inch rule.

Yes you've said all that already and I dont agree with you logic. They don't contradict, you can follow both.

 Stux wrote:
Yes you've said all that already and I dont agree with you logic. They don't contradict, you can follow both.

You can not follow both because it is literally otherwise stated, which is what the rules require.

You do not have to agree with the logic, but the logic is sound, and that is all that matters.

Which takes us back to the ambiguous definition of otherwise stated

As I will say it it is not otherwise stated because anywhere isn't sufficient you need a specific clause referencing the 3" rule to be otherwise stated

Anywhere is not that so you have proven nothing

U02dah4 wrote:
Which takes us back to the ambiguous definition of otherwise stated

As I will say it it is not otherwise stated because anywhere isn't sufficient you need a specific clause referencing the 3" rule to be otherwise stated

Anywhere is not that so you have proven nothing

Except it is not ambiguous, because it literally states otherwise.

You saying "it is not otherwise stated because anywhere isn't sufficient" is your own construction with no basis in the rules.

You said "you need a specific clause referencing the 3" rule to be otherwise stated" So I will ask for a citation where the rules say that you need a specific clause.

So do you have a rules citation?

I have proven the rule, you not understanding it, or accepting it, is not on me.

It literally does not state otherwise

You saying it does is your own construction with no basis in the rules.

You say you don't need a specific clause referencing the 3" rule so I will ask for a citation where the rules say you don't need a specific clause. Because the rules say it must be "otherwise stated"

So do you have a rules citation?

You have proven nothing without these things




Neither one of us has a citation to support their position ergo it's ambiguous.

Your argument is circular I'm right because I'm right based upon your interpretation that anywhere meets the requirements not a citation. I don't hold your interpretation and clearly from this thread others do not either.

Just be honest that it's ambiguous and that while you have a preference we can't actually say which interpretation is correct with 100% certainty.

Is 3" of a fortification contained within the term "anywhere on the table"? It's a yes or no.

U02dah4 wrote:
It literally does not state otherwise

That is of course false.

It literally says "it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."

That is literally stating otherwise.

Within 3" of a fortification is contained within the term "anywhere on the table" Thus, "anywhere on the table" literally states otherwise.

Your assessment that says "It literally does not state otherwise" is clearly false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is 3" of a fortification contained within the term "anywhere on the table"? It's a yes or no.

Contained within is irrelevant it must "state otherwise" not imply otherwise


Does it directly reference the 3" rule yes/no that is stateing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It literally does not state otherwise

That is of course false.

It literally says "it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."

That is literally stating otherwise.

Within 3" of a fortification is contained within the term "anywhere on the table" Thus, "anywhere on the table" literally states otherwise.

Your assessment that says "It literally does not state otherwise" is clearly false.

That quote "it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models."

Makes no reference to the 3" rule it has therefore literally not stated. At best you can say it implies which is not the standard it must state and that is still an interpretation you could legitimately claim it makes no direct reference to the 3" rule

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is 3" of a fortification contained within the term "anywhere on the table"? It's a yes or no.

Contained within is irrelevant it must "state otherwise" not imply otherwise


Does it directly reference the 3" rule yes/no that is stateing

Fallacious statement is fallacious

There is no implication, none.
Anywhere... by definition of the word "anywhere", and not by any stretch of the imagination implication, includes the 3" from terrain.

If you state otherwise, then you don't understand the meaning of the word anywhere, nor maths.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is 3" of a fortification contained within the term "anywhere on the table"? It's a yes or no.

Contained within is irrelevant it must "state otherwise" not imply otherwise


Does it directly reference the 3" rule yes/no that is stateing

Fallacious statement is fallacious

There is no implication, none.
Anywhere... by definition of the word "anywhere", and not by any stretch of the imagination implication, includes the 3" from terrain.

If you state otherwise, then you don't understand the meaning of the word anywhere, nor maths.

This.

by definition of the word "anywhere" literally states otherwise to the 3 inch rule. Why are you ignoring that, U02dah4?

P.S. it does not need to explicitly make reference to the 3" rule, as "anywhere" literally states otherwise.

I understand

What you seem to not understand is English

Stateing by dictoral definition is to make clear reference to something


Implying by dictoral definition is to indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference.

If you have to use math to derive the information you have inferred and therefore it is an implication and not a statement

Therefore you do not meet the standard of stateing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anywhere on its own is not a statement it is a word the context makes it a statement or an implication.

It must " otherwise state" because that's what the rule says

It must therefore meet the criteria of a statement

If it does not directly refer to the 3" rule it is always an implication that the 3" rule is overriden not a statement.

No, I derived.
"Stating"

Nope, anywhere on the table by definition of the phrase includes every distance you can measure between anythung, because that is "anywhere"

Bye.

Which proves you wrong

If you have to derrive stateing it's not a statement it's an implication

And it must "state"

To quote you
"Nope, anywhere on the table by definition of the phrase includes every distance you can measure between anythung, because that is "anywhere""

I don't disagree

And by implication that would include 3" complete agreement

However implication is not the standard it must be stated or it does not override the 3" rule. So the 3" rule creates a restriction on the word anywhere in this instance as there is no "statement otherwise" just an implication.

U02dah4 wrote:
I understand

It is clear that you do not understand the meaning of the word anywhere.

So it seems we are done here.

U02dah4 wrote:
Stateing by dictoral definition is to make clear reference to something

Exactly... anywhere makes clear reference to where you can deploy.

Bottom line is that the rules for the sporocyst literally state otherwise, and as such can be set up within 3 inches of a terrain feature.

Stating. Not "stateing" (sic)
You're requiring an explicit statement when that word doesn't appear in the rule, and I still have not implied anything. It's direct.

Is a 3" measurement included within the defining of "anywhere on the table"? Yes or no. Come now. You can answer a simple question

Yes I would derrive that it was - but I fail to see how it is relevant in anyway.


The relevant rule is
Unless otherwise stated, when setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills).

Emphasis on the "unless otherwise stated"

Which is the requirement to overide the fortification rule.

If you do not have a statement overideing the fortification rule you have not met the criteria of "unless otherwise stated"

If you have to derrive that it is overridden you have not stated at best you have inferred from an implication.

The word anywhere makes no reference to the rule so it is not "stated otherwise" even if we can infer that it covers the whole battlefield and would therefore include 3".

Seems we're st an impasse between understanding and ignorance

No inference needed. It's direct. You've made another standard up that isn't supported by rules, so yet again its pointless continuing. Enjoy.

In other words you don't have a statement referencing the fortification rule.

Therefore won't attempt to address the clause "Unless otherwise stated" Which is the only relevant clause.

Instead you will pretend you don't need it because you can infer that anywhere on the battlefield includes within 3".

But without meeting that clause your argument is wrong.

You either have a quotable statement or you don't and as established the word "anywhere" doesn't constitute a statement.

Correction - "as made up" by you requiring the word explicit to be added into the rule that doesn't exist.

But sure. Keep going. If you think 3" isn't included in "anywhere", I wish you luck in yiur endeavours.

I have never added the word explicit I merely copied the dictoral definition from Google of what a statement is because your English seemed to be poor.

The requirement was "unless otherwise stated" as quoted from the fortification rule.

Stateing by googles dictoral definition "is to make clear reference to something".

3 is included in anywhere its not relevant what is relevant is do you or do you not have a statement referencing the fortification rule and so far you have not quoted one. If you do not, you have not "otherwise stated" and the 3" rule applies.

U02dah4 wrote:
Stateing by googles dictoral definition "is to make clear reference to something".

And there is clear reference to be within 3 inches, no inference needed. Keep ignoring that if you want, but your arguments are not correct or logical.

This did not turn out the way I thought.