Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Interpretation constipation

6th Edition is rolling on and more and more interesting debates are cropping up.  I'm literally blown away by the wierd arguments people are trying to make.  One thing I am sure of:  The supposed perception of "hazy"  GW rules comes mostly from hazy people.  Some of the blatant attempts to twist cause and effect in reading rules is pretty brutal.

One in particular has the fancy of multiple forums.  Assaulting from an Assault Vehicle.

To make a long story short, the rules in essence say that no one can ever assault the next chance they get after disembarking, by any means, for any reason.  That's really about it.

The one exception is Assault Vehicles.  They are allowed to ignore this restriction at all time when disembarking, for whatever reason they may disembark.

Simple right?

Except through some labrinthine set of linguistic gymnastics, people are coming to the conclusion that you can, for example, ram something, destroy your own vehicle, charge from the ruins directly afterwards (all correct so far) but then not be able to charge in the next assault phase!  WHAT?

One word:  ridiculous.  I don't care by what method you got there.  It's just silly.

Absurd conclusions should be your first clue, people.  FIRST CLUE.  If a rule creates something so absurd that saying it out loud would make any sane man laugh, why in the world would you "float it out there" and "see what people think".

This goes back to the whole Doom of Malan'tai thing.  People tried to argue that becasue the rule didn't say that it DIDN't affect units inside a transport, that it did.  WHAT?  This is the kind of self serving bollox that people come up with.

Folks.  It's an exception based rule system.  The system says what you CAN do.  Then it says EXCEPT when X.  So what you can do is strictly defined, no addition to it allowed.  And then rules occassionally say when it isn't true and they are explicit when that happens.  That's simple isn't it?  The large book you purchased for a whopping $75 is the law unless something SPECIFICALLY tells you otherwise.

So if Assault vehicles tell you you can assault from the vehicle after it gets destroyed in your own turn (terrain or skyfire being the most likely causes) you can by virtue of the rule that allows it.  So you can.  and thats it.  And if there was another rule that said "Assult vehicle rule is trumped when" great.  but there isn't.  So at all times, you can, after disembarking from an Assault Transport, assault, as there is no exception to that rule.

By the way, the Assault Vehicle rules dont say you can't fire all your weapons four times...  But it doesn't say you can't!  So hey...  Go wild.

Another thing bugging me:  Someone tried to tell me that Eternal Warriors could ignore Feel No Pain becuase Eternal Warriors ignore the effects of Instant Death.  Feel no Pain is not an EFFECT of Instant Death!  Does nayone rational see a cause and effect relationship?  NO!  Feel No Pain works just fine against Eternal Warrior blows that aren't double the toughness.  Kay?  If Double toughness, then no Feel no Pain, no matter how Eternal you are.

People.  Be better to one another.  Stop trying to get one over on the other guy; and when you do discuss this stuff, be willing to roll a die and move on if you dont agree.  Blogs are made for opinions and mine is clear; but what troubles me most is the nature of a relationship in which you'd KEEP trying to do this to others!  Not awesome.  If its absurd, it's absurd.  Don't do it.



12 comments:

  1. You are raging without really having any understanding of what is actually being debated, apparently. Maybe if you took a breath and actually listened to what is being said you would understand the actual debates.

    Who told you that Eternal Warriors Ignored the effects of Feel No Pain? No one that I know of.

    What people tried to tell you is that a model with Eternal Warrior can always make their Feel No Pain roll, even against double toughness wounds.

    That's because when you actually read the rules, it says that Feel No Pain is negated by wounds that cause Instant Death, and Eternal Warrior allows a model to ignore the effects of Instant Death. It's really that simple. If you are an eternal warrior, and have Feel No Pain, you get to make you Feel No Pain rolls against every wound you take.

    On the wreck/assault ramp thing, it's really not that hard. You are correct in stating that it's an exception based ruleset.

    If your vehicle is destroyed on your own turn, for whatever reason, you can still disembark and assault. If it is destroyed on your opponent's turn, you are not allowed to assault on their turn (for the reasons we all discussed over on the actual thread in question) and furthermore you can't assault in your next turn. There is no logical inconsistency there, you can't assault on their turn, and you can't assault on yours. This is because that's what the rule says, plain and simple.

    Now, I think they may have made a mistake here, and I think they may Errata it, but as the rule is written, it's not ambiguous at all.

    And as far as I can see, no one is trying to "do this" to anyone, there is no need to get on a moral high horse about the topic. People are trying to figure out how the rules work, on a forum, which is pretty much designed for that purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, you're not the only one telling me these things. So don't personalize.

    Second, that's entirely inaccurate. You do not ignore the Feel no Pain rules. Eternal Warrior does not change the Feel No Pain Rule. It simply says that you are immune to the effects of INSTANT DEATH. The RULE CALLED INSTANT DEATH. You are simply made immune to the effects OF THAT RULE.

    This is the stuff I am talking about. You can't permutate the rules like that. Each rule has a name and a definition so that other rules can refer to IT specifically. The only rule that Eternal Warrior is stated as impacting is the rule named instant Death. If Eternal Warrior had an impact on the rull called Feel No Pain, it would say so. Directly.

    Here's another one for you: Do you get Hammer of Wrath attacks from an IC that did not charge into base contact? You'd think no, right? But then when you read challenges, it says that you replace a model that is in base if necessary to move him there. So then some have argued that the Hammer of Wrath attack can be taken by the IC's STR rather than the one that actually is in base contact.

    Now I know the answer to this is "no". But here again, people want it to be true so they rationalize how it COULD be true instead of taking the simplest and most obvious reading of the rule at face value.

    Force Weapons: Every hit is an attack that casues instant death assuming you make the Psychic test. Okay fine. So what YOU are saying is that because its an instant death attack, the Eternal Warrior can ignore the attack entirely because the EFFECT of the ATTACK is Instant Death? Ludicrous. In the same way, Feel No Pain is not an EFFECT of Instant Death. Instant death does not say "when you have instant death you have feel no pain". If it did you'd be right.

    So Eternal Warriors do not get Feel No Pain against attacks that are twice their STR any more than they ignore the attack that came with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Second, that's entirely inaccurate. You do not ignore the Feel no Pain rules. Eternal Warrior does not change the Feel No Pain Rule. It simply says that you are immune to the effects of INSTANT DEATH. The RULE CALLED INSTANT DEATH. You are simply made immune to the effects OF THAT RULE."

    Maybe just once you could quote the rules in question, as we did already for you on Warsound, so that you could see exactly what we are talking about. Here, let me get you the quotes again:

    The exact wording for Feel no Pain (p.35, BRB):

    "...Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death."

    And the relevant wording for Eternal Warrior (p.35, BRB):

    "A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death."

    A model with Eternal Warrior is immune to the effects (plural) of Instant Death, one of which is to negate Feel No Pain.

    "Force Weapons: Every hit is an attack that casues instant death assuming you make the Psychic test. Okay fine. So what YOU are saying is that because its an instant death attack, the Eternal Warrior can ignore the attack entirely because the EFFECT of the ATTACK is Instant Death? Ludicrous. In the same way, Feel No Pain is not an EFFECT of Instant Death. Instant death does not say "when you have instant death you have feel no pain". If it did you'd be right."

    This is so strange it's almost incomprehensible. The problem is that you don't actually read the rules, you just give your "layman's version" and then make up absolutely "Ludicrous, as you say, scenarios. The Force Weapon inflicts a wound, which, if unsaved, can be given the Instant Death property. Eternal Warrior makes you immune to Instant Death, but you have already suffered an unsaved wound. However if you have Eternal Warrior AND Feel No Pain, you could still take a Feel No Pain roll against that unsaved wound, because one of the effects of Instant Death is to disallow Feel No Pain rolls... but you are immune to the effects of Instant Death.

    This isn't some kind of complicate linguistical permutation, this is simply clearly reading the rules and seeing how they interact. There is nothing in the Feel No Pain rule about double toughness, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it. The Feel No Pain roll is disallowed against wounds that INFLICT instant death, which Eternal Warrior models are immune to. It's just clear reading.

    I don't even understand what you are saying about the Hammer of Wrath thing so I'm not even going to attempt to respond to that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is the bottom line of your argument, and I'm not going to lie... its as incomprehensible to ME as anything you've ever said.

    "if you have Eternal Warrior AND Feel No Pain, you could still take a Feel No Pain roll against that unsaved wound, because one of the EFFECS of Instant Death is to disallow Feel No Pain rolls... but you are immune to the effects of Instant Death."

    Your characterization of thsi as an effect is the error. Its not an effect. It simply isn't rolled in the case where instant death is caused. This characterization is patently false. There's nothing here that says that. It's not one of the EFFECTS of Instant Death! the only EFFECT instant death lists is to ignore the number of wounds and kill you outright.

    Instant Death doesn't NEGATE the Feel No Pain rule. TheFeel No Pain rule negates ITSELF when an instant Death wound is conerned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, well at least we are now at least having the same discussion, which is a good thing.

    The question, and this really IS the question, is whether the wound actually "inflicts" Instant Death against a model with Eternal Warrior. Does it? To be clear, this is following the Exception based philosophy to a T. You have a model, that is always allowed to make a Feel No Pain roll, EXCEPT against wounds that 'inflict' Instant Death. The question is whether a given wound (high strength, say, or force weapon wound) actually 'inflicts' Instant Death against a model with Eternal Warrior.

    It's interesting that you state that the only effect (singular) of Instant Death is to ignore the number of wounds and kill you outright. Yet the Eternal Warrior rule states that it ignores the "effects" (plural) of Instant Death. What is the other effect of Instant Death? Ignoring Feel No Pain is the only other effect of Instant Death I am aware of.

    Regardless, you can argue that using the plural there was sloppy, or simply that the British use plurals for fun.

    The actual question, is whether you should read the sentence as "Feel No Pain is ignored by those wounds which possess the property of "inflicting" Instant Death, regardless of whether they actually "Inflict" instant death on their target" OR "Feel No Pain is only ignored by those wounds which actually Inflict Instant Death on their target, if they are prevented from "inflicting" Instant Death (as by Eternal Warrior) then the Feel No Pain rule is allowed."

    This IS the debate, and to be sure, it IS a debate. Because it's unclear, and it can be read either way. What I find confusing is that you cannot see both readings of a given rule. I CAN see both readings, and have chosen the one that I feel is correct, based upon a variety of clues that the authors provide us (including referencing plural effects of instant death).

    At least it appears that you have correctly stated the position of your opponents, which is the first step to understanding it and, if appropriate, providing a stronger counter-argument. To assist you, the strongest counter argument is that the Feel No Pain rule means that it cannot be made against any wound which has the characteristic "Inflicts Instant Death" rather than only being disallowed against wounds that "inflict" Instant Death.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jack Lemon vs. Walter Matthau. You two both make cogent points in all of your discussions, but I've noticed you often mischarachterize the others position. Allow me to dumb it down, according to raw, a model with eternal warrior may always make a fnp save, because nothing can inflict instant death on it. You two should put your heads together some time,you are both so bright.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Err...assuming it has FnP that is...lol, now im doing it

    ReplyDelete
  8. Page 16 defines for you what the EFFECTS of Instant death are: that a model is reduced to Zero wounds and then removed a a casualty.

    Eternal Warrior says that it is immune to the effects of unsaved wounds THAT inflict (not inflicted) Instant Death. Those effects he is immune to are then:
    1. reduced to zero wounds
    2. removed as a casualty.

    Eternal Warrior is referring to the specific Page 16 definition of the RULE Instant Death.

    Here's the thing:

    The Feel No Pain rule is resolved before the Eternal Warrior issue is resolved. It tells you to roll and on a 5+ to "treat it as having been saved"!!! This means there is no unsaved wound or else Feel No pain resolves that the unsaved wound stands unopposed. It's only then that we can decide if Eternal Warrior is triggered.

    Eternal Warrior ability can only be triggered ONCE there is an unsaved wound.

    Keep in mind: Attacks that cause these Instant Death wounds STILL "cause instant death", even if an Eternal Warrior ignores the effect. They dont lose that property. The truth is that the wound DID inflict Instant Death and the Eternal Warrior DID ignore the effects (page 16).

    For if it had not caused an unsaved Instant Death wound, the Eternal Warrior rule would have nothing to ignore and would not be triggered!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is effectively the other side of the argument. I understand it, and acknowledge that it is a valid argument. I think your emphasis on the tenses (inflicts versus inflicted) and the order of operations is misplaced. The most valid counter-argument is exactly what you stated, that the wound itself is a wound that "inflicts instant death" and thus ignores Feel No Pain. The other side of that is to read the wound actually having to "inflict" instant death (inflict is a verb, and it could easily be read EITHER way). It's basically a question of whether the word "inflicts" is being used to describe a property of the wound to potentially cause instant death, or whether it is describing an actual event where it causes instant death. It's absolutely, 100% ambiguous from that standpoint alone. I can acknowledge your perspective as being valid, and not as a result of you being a "hazy person." I challenge you to acknowledge mine.

      I will however review the rules when I have an opportunity to look at the order of operations question. It's an interesting point, I will look at it.

      Delete
  9. The FAQ is up and guess what?

    Q: Can Feel No Pain rolls be made against unsaved Wounds inflicted by weapons that have the Instant Death special rule? (p35)
    A: No.

    Q: If a model has the Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain special
    rules, can it still make Feel No Pain rolls against Wounds that
    inflict Instant Death (Eternal Warrior states that the model is
    immune to the effects of Instant Death, after all)? (p35)
    A: No

    Look whose NOT surprised one bit. THIS GUY. This is the most obvious thing in the world to me, All the linguistic gymnastics LIKE I SAID won't change how the rules SHOULD BE READ. Do not abandon your senses folks: when you can clearly see that reading it one way is absurd while reading it the other way is not, assume the absurd one is wrong.

    This RAW crap is just an Easter Egg hunt for advantage against opponents. We really need to stop doing it.

    Oh there's more?

    Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
    turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
    A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

    Duh. Again. AGAIN I say to you: just read the rules as you know they were obviously intended instead of playing games.

    Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more
    groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in
    base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
    A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed in
    an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-toend
    such as in the example shown on page 114.

    Duh...again! These are the most obvious questions that GW was forced to answer because MUNCHKINS are looking to take advantage of their opponent all the time. You know G.D. well that they can't be in separate sections. They even gave you a damn picture and people still want to argue it.

    It's one thing to be wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I do. But to rant on and on and to insist on things that are "plausible" is just... annoying me a lot lately.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Imagine playing against someone who ALWAYS played it exactly opposite the FAQ and insisted you're a D-bag for telling them they are wrong in no uncertain terms. Lol. Would that make you a bit peeved? Can you imagine how many rules that is in one game? Sheesh. And they wonder why I get so gall danged fired up 'bout it. An entire game of nothing but "Well the strict RAW says..." when they know its wrong? They KNOW! Good lawd.

    On an unrelated but kinda related topic, the enfeeble thing is now gaining a head of steam. The Malediction says when its IN EFFECT, you get a -1 to toughness. Thats it. So putting it in effect 100 times is still just being IN EFFECT. So -1 no matter how many time you cast it. Simple.

    Also... You can stack DIFFERENT maledictions explicitly, not the same ones. So even if this weren't clear as a freshly wiped down picture window, you couldn't do it anyways.

    Another Easter Egg hunt. Boing Boing Boing. I can tell ya' right now where I'll place my money and i'll give you a hint: it doesn't rhyme with Easter Egg.

    I just had a hilarious thought. I could start a website and call it BUNNYHUNTERS.COM and the whole thing would be about dropping Easter Egg Bunnies in their tracks who go around the Internet floating the "plausible readings". We could have like Pics of all the worst offenders on there. The people who always seem to "float" those ideas out there and a link to their threads. GAH. That would be so awesome. Kinda like those guys who track rumors and figure out whose full of crap and whose not, on releases and stuff. Anyways... fun to think about. I wonder if it would ever stop them from doing it? Probably not. But I bet it would be a popular site.

    ReplyDelete