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.

 Niiai wrote:
This did not turn out the way I thought.

It's YMDC and this is their version of The Aristocrats.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

You need to otherwise state in relation to the fortification rule - not the distance - any reference to the distance is not relevant if it does not overwise state

- You have permission to deploy anywhere on the battlefield

- and a separate restriction saying you must deploy 3" away from other terrain unless otherwise stated.

So aslong as it is not otherwise stated you cannot deploy in those areas despite normally being able to deploy anywhere

That is true unless you can present a rule stateing otherwise and so far you have presented no such rule stateing the fortification rules do not apply or modifying the fortification rule so they are not otherwise stated.

Anywhere or a set distance from the enemy or any such standardised area deployment is just not relevant to whether the restriction applies I don't know what your obsession with it is.



FYI if you could provide a quote directly stateing that you had permission to deploy within 3" of the terrain that would meet the standard of a statement otherwise. You do not have that or you would have presented that.

saying you can deploy anywhere 9" from the enemy is not a statement with respect to the fortification restriction or the terrain. It does not reference either the rule or the contents of that rule

See heres where the issue lies though:

The restriction to deploy 3" away from other terrain.

The Sporocyst isnt terrain. It is a monster.

It is a unique fortification that isnt terrain. All other fortifications are terrain.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
See heres where the issue lies though:

The restriction to deploy 3" away from other terrain.

The Sporocyst isnt terrain. It is a monster.

It is a unique fortification that isnt terrain. All other fortifications are terrain.

Its a terrain feature, because it has the fortification battlefield role. It doesnt matter what keywords it has, or not has.

FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army.

But thats irrelevant. All that matters is that it has a rule which otherwise states how to set it up, which it has. Then the 3" restriction is not used.

There are also other examples that are not terrain in the conventional sense and function as vehicles e.g. imperial bunker/bastion

It is the fortification battlefield role that determines whether it is effected.

So sorry that's not really relevant. All that matters is whether it has a rule which otherwise states in relation to the fortification rule.

Otherwise regardless of the rule for how its set up/deployed the fortification rule overrules it providing an additional restriction.

It does not have a statement to this effect so cannot be set up within 3" of terrain.

Except, raw it can. As proven more than once. That you've had to add a requirement for it to be an explicit statement to the rule in order to make your argument shows how weak your argument is.

Raw its been quoted that you require one

"FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. 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)."

What do you think "unless otherwise stated" means in this context? If it does not mean unless you provide explicit text to the contrary?

You have proven nothing just asserted.

Nope, proven. You've added words in that don't exist in the actual rules in order to justify your argument.

Raw it has been otherwise stated. That's it. Keep arguing if you like, it isn't persuasive.

This is the miasmic malignifier thread again.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
This is the miasmic malignifier thread again.

It’s a waste of a thread for sure. People just restating “you’re wrong” ad infinitum is not a rules debate, and the model doesn’t even see play right now. So it’s just bickering over a moot point.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
This is the miasmic malignifier thread again.

I was trying to think what thread this had come up in before


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, proven. You've added words in that don't exist in the actual rules in order to justify your argument.

Raw it has been otherwise stated. That's it. Keep arguing if you like, it isn't persuasive.

That was all direct quotes

You also dodged the question

"FORTIFICATIONS
Units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role are terrain features that are part of your army. 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)."

What do you think "unless otherwise stated" means in this context? If it does not mean unless you provide explicit text to the contrary?

I ask this because it's the crux of the dispute and I know you don't want to address it. But if you don't accept my interpretation or offer an alternative interpretation of that passage we are not discussing the rules your ignoring them. And any further discussion that leads on from it is pointless if your going to ignore the text as quoted. Just stateing raw this happens or proven with no quote to support your position or attempt to address the question is pointless.

So I will ask again what does "unless otherwise stated" mean in the context in which it is presented

You're *

I already stated (see how this works...) that the requirement for it to be explicit has been added by you. We know this because the word "explicit"doesn't exist in the rules quote. Yet you keep interpreting it as having that requirement, withiut that requirement being inferred even by context

"Anywhere on the table" includes "not within 3"..." by definition of the phrase. Thus, it has been otherwise stated.

Shockingly, once I've proven my side it's helpful if you actually counter it, instead of making up a version of the rule and asking how I can disprove that made up version...

Again what does "unless otherwise stated" mean in the context in which it is presented

We can move on only when you provide an alternative explanation or agree mine.

You again did not answer the question, what is so difficult about it?

Essentially we need to agree what the requirement is or any discussion about whether you meet the requirement is pointless.

And stating a direct quote first made by p5freak in the first page of the thread is made up when it has identical text to my quote and has been copied and pasted because I'm lazy is just wrong. I'm sorry if the rules quoted don't agree with your proof its tricky when that happens it usually means you've proven yourself wrong.

Again if you truelly believe my quote on the fortification rule is false instead of saying it is made up why don't you quote the exact rules and we can highlight the text that differs.

Ah sorry, apparently I was too subtle

You added the requirement for it to be an explicit statement to the rule. The rule at no point infers a requirement for an explicit referent to the, for simplicity , "3" rule " for it to qualify as "otherwise stated"


I've already answered what it means. Have done for 3 pages.

I'm sorry you're not understanding that.

Look, we tried to set this aside a page ago. It's literally just sarcasm and passive aggression at this point.

Can we all really not just accept that the arguments are not persuasive to the other side and leave this be without getting a dig in at their intelligence on the way out?

Or do you just want to keep doing this for another few pages and see who happens to get the last word before it's locked?

Yep, tried, U02 dragged me back


I'm done though. I don't agree it is ambiguous, of course - explicit requirements are pretty clearly that in GW rules, this isn't written as one - but if people really want to argue, go for it.

I'll just follow the rule as written,,not the rule as inferred.

Previously:

Deployment rules from core and GT books have no “unless otherwise stated” exemption. Everyone is more than happy to forward deploy scout-style units despite this.

Fortifications do have an exemption and this is somehow contentious.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah sorry, apparently I was too subtle

You added the requirement for it to be an explicit statement to the rule. The rule at no point infers a requirement for an explicit referent to the, for simplicity , "3" rule " for it to qualify as "otherwise stated"


I've already answered what it means. Have done for 3 pages.

I'm sorry you're not understanding that.

That's because you haven't answered yet

What do you think "unless otherwise stated" means in this context? If it does not mean unless you provide explicit text to the contrary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Look, we tried to set this aside a page ago. It's literally just sarcasm and passive aggression at this point.

Can we all really not just accept that the arguments are not persuasive to the other side and leave this be without getting a dig in at their intelligence on the way out?

Or do you just want to keep doing this for another few pages and see who happens to get the last word before it's locked?

I'm trying to get an acknowledgement of what they think

"unless otherwise stated" means

Because I think it means "unless otherwise stated" or in otherwords unless there is specific text saying otherwise and they seem to think it doesn't but won't provide an alternative definition just saying the quote doesn't exist

Once they define what they think it means you can actually have a discussion about what criteria is sufficient to meet that standard.

Then you can have a discussion about whether this specific instance meets that standard

I'm trying to constructively explore the issue but I admit that's difficult when your never actually answered just presented with an asserted conclusion as proof with no evidence and a statement that the rules text is made up when it clearly a direct quote

In essence their answer of I meet the standard doesn't answer any questions when their isn't a joint understanding of what that standard is, so I am trying to find out from them not if they meet the standard but what they think it is with reference to the actual rules quote and how they got to that definition with reference to the rules

Because if they cannot answer and provide a clear definition grounded In rules quotes that means one of two possible conclusions either they are outright wrong or alternatively that their answer is based on a subjective interpretation and thus ambiguous.

U02dah4 wrote:
Because I think it means "unless otherwise stated" or in otherwords unless there is specific text saying otherwise and they seem to think it doesn't but won't provide an alternative definition just saying the quote doesn't exist

"unless otherwise stated" means you follow what it says until something says differently. The sporocyst rules is something that says differently. How you are still trying to say it does not is beyond me, and I can not see why you think the sporocyst rules do not say differently.

You are ignoring the specific text saying otherwise.

So we are done here it seems.

General comment:

English is not a super technical language. Most GW writing aren’t very technical (or aren’t good at being technical) either.

It is possible for the same text to have multiple correct interpretations.

Yes but if the same text has multiple interpretations that means we have established that the answer is ambiguous

Answer 1 unless otherwise stated means specific reference to the fortification rule

Answer 2 otherwise stated means until something says differently

RAW is Ambiguous unless a specific quote can be provided showing one interpretation is correct and noone has

However as Answer 2 means the fortification rule does nothing ever as even the normal deployment rules say differently rai the first Answer is correct by that definition as the second is broken