Logo
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:57 am



Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
assassin where put on the regiment need help here? 
Author Message
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:41 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Putting needles into people.
Post 
Decheran wrote:
How could i be wrong, i have a direct quote from the book, i mean really come to your sences, if the rules say something better than you thought, you should greedily except it


Dark elves have to accept it... For the longest time I had an argument with the others about whether we use the summary chart at the back of the DE book for magic spell casting or the chart under the Dark Magic list. IE: 5+ vs 6+ for chillwind...
Finally clarification, I held my breath for that one.

Speaking of english mixup, in the DE book in the fluff/crap about executioner when it says, has killing blow that can kill the "largest" of foes.... well does that mean we can kill a giant with one shot, because a giant is LARGE...

But it doesn't mean that, because its too good to be true. They really need to watch their language.

I know it sounds right, but if I know what evil lurked in Gav's head when it comes to DE, I know that if anything is too good to be true then its not true.

Though I have to say, displace sounds correct (and according to english dictionary it means:

Main Entry: dis·place
Pronunciation: (")dis-'plAs
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: probably from Middle French desplacer, from des- dis- + place place
Date: 1553
1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place; specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland b : to remove from an office, status, or job c obsolete : to drive out : BANISH
2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces water> b : to take the place of (as in a chemical reaction) : SUPPLANT
synonym see REPLACE

So sorry but the corsair rips off his cloak, like superman (why can't my assasin use that cloak?) and starts hacking... (NO EXTRA CORSAIR).

_________________
While running a million dollar company, singing at weddings, and his frequent jetting to Spain Elton Jon style, Dark Alliance found the time to stand on the doorstep of Games Workshop like Moses and the Pharoah and calmly state, "Let my people go."


Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:31 am
Profile
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:41 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Putting needles into people.
Post 
Plus it makes sense. He cannot hide in someone's pocket, I suppose.

_________________
While running a million dollar company, singing at weddings, and his frequent jetting to Spain Elton Jon style, Dark Alliance found the time to stand on the doorstep of Games Workshop like Moses and the Pharoah and calmly state, "Let my people go."


Fri Oct 18, 2002 6:20 pm
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
First, regarding the executioner "fluff/crap" this is a seperate and unrelated issue of mistaking background text for rules text. This is not a matter of semantics or logic. The same can be said for the "where does he hide?" argument. It is a question of background which unfortunetly has absolutely no bearing on the rules. As I have said before, it isn't even mentioned in the current background that the assassin is disguised as an ordinary trooper. Second, regarding the definition you supply, I believe that the rule makes use of definition 2a:

Quote:
2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces water>


As in... The assassin model moves physically out of position the corsair model.

You can make an equally justified argument that the rule makes use of a different definition of the term, however I would like to offer the following evidence to support my interpretation:

The DE assassin rule says the following:

Quote:
The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where he can fight, displacing a normal rank-and-file model.


The Skaven assassin rule says this:

Quote:
The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where it can fight, displacing a normal rank-and-file model(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank.


Note that these rules are absolutely identical with the exception of the use of the pronoun "he" instead of "it" in the DE entry and the addition of the following fragment to the skaven rules:

Quote:
(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank


Thus the skaven rule specifies exactly where the rank-and-file model is displaced to while the DE rule does not. It is left to the player to assume where that model goes. I believe that he skaven rule sets a precedent that the model will be displaced to the rear rank. It is certainly possible to interpret the DE assassin rule in multiple ways, however I feel that the "displace to rear rank" method is at least as valid as any other.

Also, note the following rule that immediately follows the rules quoted above in both the skaven and DE books:

Quote:
If there are no such models in the front rank, the Assassin is placed in the second rank until there is enough room for him in the first rank.


There is absolutely no mention of either displacing OR replacing models in this rule. This means that if a unit consists of only one rank with no rank and file models the assassin is simply placed in the second rank. No models are moved, removed, replaced, or displaced.

Finally, it can make sense. The assassin could use his mastery of stealth to remain concealed in shadows in and amongst the unit. Perhaps most importantly, it is far from being "too good to be true" that a 125pt BASE cost model does not also force you take a single casualty in order to get him on the table. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that is rediculous to think that such a cost could be justified at all.


Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:29 pm
Profile
Morathi's Favoured
Morathi's Favoured

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 1:29 pm
Posts: 9709
Location: In the paintshop
Post 
I do not understand why you guys are arguing over this. In our army book it clearly states the assassin displaces a model, so common sense dictates you would just place the removed model at the back of the unit.

Indeed GW even stste theirselves on page 43 of the main rule book, under 'Improvisation' that they cannot cover every possible situation without writing thousands of pages of pedantic text. So players should feel free to improvise.

There you have GW approval IMHO, displacing the model is common sense and actually in our favour, so why put forward a case to remove it???

Hardly the druchii way IMHO :D


Fri Oct 18, 2002 10:13 pm
Profile
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:41 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Putting needles into people.
Post 
Dude, I hear what you are saying... but then in the skaven book doesn't it also go on to state that the rank and file is not removed???

Remember, however, if its too good to be true its probably not true. I agree with you, that it would be hard for another to count all the troops in a unit since its moving, large numbers etc. An assassin could easily hide there. Plus even though its minor we shouldn't be penalized for the trooper (should not cost us those points.)

In fact from now on I am not going to count the trooper he replaces/displaces (replace is a synonym for displace) when I added up my points.

But I think that displace in this case, unfortunately means goodbye trooper. Sorry. It would be nice if GW clarified it, though. I am sympathetic to what you are saying.

Anyhow I believe that IF they write an army book certain words such as "LARGE" should be definition words. It means something and shouldn't be abused even in fluff. Books like the new D&D manual subscribe to this, and it makes for a very non-confusing/non-misleading manual. I wasn't making that point as an argument for the hidden rule. I was making it as a point of how many arguments I have noticed involving rules for this game.

_________________
While running a million dollar company, singing at weddings, and his frequent jetting to Spain Elton Jon style, Dark Alliance found the time to stand on the doorstep of Games Workshop like Moses and the Pharoah and calmly state, "Let my people go."


Fri Oct 18, 2002 10:20 pm
Profile
Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:39 am
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post 
KnightSaber wrote:
snip....
Note that these rules are absolutely identical with the exception of the use of the pronoun "he" instead of "it" in the DE entry and the addition of the following fragment to the skaven rules:

Quote:
(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank


Thus the skaven rule specifies exactly where the rank-and-file model is displaced to while the DE rule does not. It is left to the player to assume where that model goes. I believe that he skaven rule sets a precedent that the model will be displaced to the rear rank. It is certainly possible to interpret the DE assassin rule in multiple ways, however I feel that the "displace to rear rank" method is at least as valid as any other.

Also, note the following rule that immediately follows the rules quoted above in both the skaven and DE books:

Quote:
If there are no such models in the front rank, the Assassin is placed in the second rank until there is enough room for him in the first rank.


There is absolutely no mention of either displacing OR replacing models in this rule. This means that if a unit consists of only one rank with no rank and file models the assassin is simply placed in the second rank. No models are moved, removed, replaced, or displaced.


Look, I would love to agree with you. The problem is you are making an assumption. You understand that their a clear difference between the two rules. One has additional rules that the other does not have.

You also believe the second part of the rule is a seperate rule to the first part. I would suggest they are the same rule, with an expansion.

KnightSaber wrote:
It is left to the player to assume where that model goes.


That may be your choice to make this assumption, it is just not supported by the rules. Otherwise the rule would have said exactly that, and it does not. We can not know why it was written this way, until GW produce a corection it is the ruling.

KnightSaber wrote:
Finally, it can make sense. The assassin could use his mastery of stealth to remain concealed in shadows in and amongst the unit. Perhaps most importantly, it is far from being "too good to be true" that a 125pt BASE cost model does not also force you take a single casualty in order to get him on the table. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that is rediculous to think that such a cost could be justified at all.


Completely agree that this should be the case. What you have discovered is an example of the poor design of the army book. One of the first changes people should be suggesting to the army book is this exact case.

Maybe it comes down to how people interpret rules. I for one believe you can only go on what is written. We have no idea of what the designers were thinking, otherwise they would have a statement of intent in the army book. It is clear that the game designers are designing a fantasy set of rules. They make some attempt at providing a basis in reality but clearly deviate from common sense on so many occasions. In friendly games you can make any variation on the rules you like but you should recognise that they are home rules.

_________________
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"

Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.


Sat Oct 19, 2002 2:56 am
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
I understand what you are saying, and I think that you almost understand what I am saying. I completely agree that you can only do what the rules say. If you look at the definition of the word displace you will see that it can mean two similar but different things. It can either mean "to take the place of" which is the definition you assume is being used, or it can mean "move out of position" which is the definition I assume is being used. Either interpretation is fully supported by the rules written in the dark elf book. You claim that I am making assumptions that are not supported by the rules, however if you look at the quotes I have provided and the definition of the word "displace" you will see that I am not. We are both making interpretations based our respective assumption as to the intended meaning of the term displace. The DE rule does not explicitly state that a rnf model must be remove nor does it explicitly state that the rnf model is moved to the back of the unit. I feel that there it is clear that no models are removed (based upon the rules as written) while you feel otherwise.

With regard to my use of the skaven rule to support my view, please understand that I realize it is a seperate rule. I simply used it to demonstate the definition that GW seems to use in thier rule books for the word "displace". If they meant "replace" or "take the place of" then the rule in the skaven book would make no sense at all:

The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where it can fight, taking the place of a normal rank-and-file model(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank?????

I think that you should take a long hard look at the way the rules are actually written as well as the precise meaning of each word before you assume that my way is a "house rule" and that your way is explicitly stated in the rules. If you can please show me where it clearly and specifically says that an rnf model is removed from the game when an assassin is revealed I would very much appreciate it. However, until then I assert that your interpretation is at least as much a house rule as mine is. This argument will clearly not be resolved until a clarification is published, because we are now only arguing which definition of the word "displace" should be used. If you can point out a different "assumption" or error I am making I would be happy to continue this discussion, otherwise I will consider the matter concluded.


Sat Oct 19, 2002 4:54 am
Profile
Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:39 am
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post 
KnightSaber wrote:
With regard to my use of the skaven rule to support my view, please understand that I realize it is a seperate rule. I simply used it to demonstate the definition that GW seems to use in thier rule books for the word "displace". If they meant "replace" or "take the place of" then the rule in the skaven book would make no sense at all:


Which is why the skaven rule has the extend explanation.

KnightSaber wrote:
The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where it can fight, taking the place of a normal rank-and-file model(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank?????


Like I said I agree but can not find anywhere in the rule where it says the displaced model is moved to [insert choice here].

May I ask where you displace the model to?

If the rear rank, why?

Can you find a rule that says you go to the rear rank?

Or any rank for that matter?

Why do you not displace the model directly, expanding your front rank by an extra figure?

I agree the rule says displace. I agree the model is moved. I agree the rule should be the way you suggest. I believe you are using the skaven example to support the DE rule. Because one displaces to the rear rank the other rule must mean the same.

_________________
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"

Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.


Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:04 am
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
Fair enough, I agree that an assumption must be made as to the final location of the displaced model. I place the model in the rear rank of the unit. I do this based upon what occurs when a character normally joins a unit (for example, when noble on foot moves into unit during the movement phase). Note that it doesn't matter wether that exact model ends up in the rear rank or in any rank in between so long as all models are similarly shuffled up the ranks so that the unit's width doesn't change (which requires a special movement action) and all ranks remain legal (as indicated in the core rules). Obviously, it is easier to simply pick up the displaced model and place it in the rear of the unit rather than shuffling each model in the unit back a slot. Admittedly, I am also influenced by the precedent I perceive to have been set by the skaven rule of the same name (though, that does NOT even come close provide conclusive evidence). Note, though that I am not claiming that because the skaven rule says this that the DE rule MUST be the same. It is merely a strong suggestion of how to clarify an otherwise unclear rule.

I agree that this process is NOT explicitly stated in the rule, however, even looking solely at the rules written exactly as they are written in the DE book it is my opinion that this is the most reasonable and accurate interpretation. I can see how one could interpret the rule to require the removal of a model, however i feel that there is more support (based upon the various quotes and examples I have given previously) for the move model to the rear interpretation.

Finally, if you do agree that the rnf model remains in play, I think that the only legal place for it to end up is in the rear of the unit (this is certainly NOT clearly stated in the rule and is indeed an assumption, though i would argue it is a fairly safe one). The other options you give are either illegal (widening a rank) or irrelevant (place in the middle and displace the remaining models to the rear).

To sum up, I feel that the rule is not clearly presented and that without further official clarification both views are possible. I would argue that in the absence of any other precedent or ruling that the skaven example gives slightly greater credence to the "displace to rear rank" interpretation, though it does not actually settle anything.

P.S. If you think that the displace to rear rank makes the most sense and SHOULD be the rule then play with it. The rule is unclear and there is certainly no other interpretation that is MORE valid.


Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:49 am
Profile
Evil Henchman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 12:50 am
Posts: 958
Location: Being a pseudo-mod
Post 
displace

_________________
"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
-Carl Sagan


Sat Oct 19, 2002 2:28 pm
Profile
Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:39 am
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post 
KnightSaber wrote:
Fair enough, I agree that an assumption must be made as to the final location of the displaced model.


I just follow the rules as they are written.

KnightSaber wrote:
To sum up, I feel that the rule is not clearly presented and that without further official clarification both views are possible.


Where as I feel the rule is as written and is quite clear. Just because you disagree with the rule you feel it is unclear. The clasic example of this is when the undead became vulnerable to poison. People assumed the rule was unclear and badly written, it was not.

KnightSaber wrote:
I would argue that in the absence of any other precedent or ruling that the skaven example gives slightly greater credence to the "displace to rear rank" interpretation, though it does not actually settle anything.


Exactly the way I do not interpret rules. I believe you can only follow the rules as written. If you feel that a rule you disagree with requires additional interpretation that is your choice.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said I want the rule to be the way you suggest, the problem is that the rule does not allow you to do that.

_________________
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"

Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.


Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:23 am
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
Please, let us try to keep this a bit more civil.

Quote:
I just follow the rules as they are written.


How so? You claim that this means that the model is removed from play. Please show me where this is clearly stated. Show me where my reading of the rules is incorrect. Simply stating that you are correct or that something is clear does not make it so.

Quote:
Where as I feel the rule is as written and is quite clear. Just because you disagree with the rule you feel it is unclear. The clasic example of this is when the undead became vulnerable to poison. People assumed the rule was unclear and badly written, it was not.


Where are you getting this from?? I have never claimed that the rule should be played as anything than what was written. I admitted freely that your interpretation could be valid. This discussion is intended to determine the exact meaning of the rule as written. I claim that the rule is unclear because I genuinely believe that to be the case. I have provided quotes from the rule and spent time in (what I thought was) thoughtful discussion to come to some kind of concensus. You are bringing up a completely unrelated example. The issue with poison was extremely clear, this is not. The VC army book never mentioned anything about poison immunity. The poison rule says that units that immune will clearily indicate that they are. There is no room for discusion there. Please show me how this argument is the same. Again, I would be happy to hear you explain why you feel that this rule is so clear as it is currently written. So far you have not even attempted to do so.

Quote:
Exactly the way I do not interpret rules. I believe you can only follow the rules as written. If you feel that a rule you disagree with requires additional interpretation that is your choice.


Yet again you claim that you follow the rule as written, yet it seems that I have pointed out that it is infact incomplete and unclear as written. You admit earlier that the rule says the model is diplaced to somewhere. To where do you displace it? Why? You seem to believe that it is obvious that the model is removed yet cannot provide evidence to support this. If you are unable to provide an argument to support your claims perhaps the rule isn't as clear as you believe.

Quote:
We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said I want the rule to be the way you suggest, the problem is that the rule does not allow you to do that.


It certainly looks that way. I only wish that you would not resort to barely veiled personal attacks regarding my motives and intellect. For the record I do not use assassins, nor will I regardless of the which interpretation is being used and thus have no personal stake which way the rule is played. You are making some rather huge assumptions without any basis. Perhaps you have done the same with your reading of this rule which dispite it's "clarity" has engendered a great deal of debate on these and other forums with multiple individuals supporting widely varied interpretations. This variety of view points, even after significant discussions, suggests to me that at the very least the rule is not clear.


Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:51 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 1:21 pm
Posts: 6
Post 
The word displace never has the exact same meaning as replace (if it did we would just say replace). Yes, they are synonyms, but synonyms are words with similiar meanings not the same meanings.

The definition that is confusing people is 2b (the least common definition of the word) "To take the place of (as in a chemical reaction)." Who took chemistry in high school? Okay, put down your hands. In a chemical reation one element displaces another element in a molicule. That is to say it replaces it in the molicule. So obviously the displaced (replaced) element disappears like our poor corsair. No, that would make it a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction, because the only way we can lose an element is by turning it into energy.

So were does the displaced element go? Back into the solution that the reaction was performed in. It was displaced, not destroyed. In the same way, the RNF corsair is in a molicule (the front row) along comes the assasian and a (chemical) reaction occurs. The assasian displaces the corsair in the front row(molicule). The corsair, like the displaced element is not turned into energy, but remains in the solution the reaction took place in (the unit). By rule, each rank, except the rearmost rank, must have the same number of models in it. So by rule the displaced model must be placed in the rear-most rank unless that rank is already the same width as the rest of the ranks in which case the displaced model starts a new rank.

So, to sum up, displace never means to substitute one item for another while removing the other item from existance. It always means one item taking the position of another item. The word has no inherent meaning that allows the assumption of removing the displaced item.


Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:26 pm
Profile
Dark Emissary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:21 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Cophenhagen, Denmark...no, not Sweden but Denmark!
Post 
cant make the thnigs with the hands work.... :oops:
now everyone should have understood how to deal with this problem.....

_________________
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Not even You!!

Hilsen Sortelveren
www.hardwareHQ.dk


Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:57 pm
Profile WWW
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 7:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post 
On page 20,under the rules for hidden it says displace

clearly

u have to be a moron not to see that


well.....maybe not. but u have to be a moron not to
see if after ppl quote it from the book

_________________
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.


Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:08 pm
Profile YIM
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
Malekith's Tastetester & Physician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:41 pm
Posts: 5170
Location: Putting needles into people.
Post 
This point has been cleared up, so now everyone lets be friends. See Linda's new topic message, or my last one on here. Do not count the corsair that he replaces/displaces/zaps out of the universe or whatever, when adding up your points.

So if you want a unit of 20 corsairs and 1 assasin, make a unit of 21 corsairs but don't add up 21 points (21x10) just add up 20 (20x10).

This is GW's most recent ruling as of a few days ago, see the GW board, or view Linda's topic post, in the discussion somewhere.

If your opponent starts to assume odd numbers means an assassin, add odd numbers to various units. It will perhaps scare the crap outta him.

Anyhow GW ruled on this issue. :D

_________________
While running a million dollar company, singing at weddings, and his frequent jetting to Spain Elton Jon style, Dark Alliance found the time to stand on the doorstep of Games Workshop like Moses and the Pharoah and calmly state, "Let my people go."


Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:35 pm
Profile
Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:39 am
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post 
KnightSaber wrote:
I only wish that you would not resort to barely veiled personal attacks regarding my motives and intellect.


If my post came accross as insulting I appologise. It was meant to be brief not insulting.

Perhaps I am not making my point clear.

Ok, lets examine the two rules

The DE assassin rule says the following:

"The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where he can fight, displacing a normal rank-and-file model. "

The Skaven assassin rule says this:

"The player declares that his unit contains an Assassin and places the model amonst the ranks where it can fight, displacing a normal rank-and-file model(not a character, champion, musician, or standard bearer) to the rearmost rank. "

The rules are exactly the same in the first instance. You declare you are deploying the assasin. You then deploy the assasin by dispacing a model. The Skaven assasin is different from the DE assasin in that the rule allows you to displace the rank and file model to the rearmost rank. The DE rule does not say this.

We both agree on this. We both agree what the rule should say. As I was trying (very badly :oops: ) to explain the difference between us comes down to how you (or anyone) interprets a rule.

It is my point that rules state what you may do in a game. That by definition means you may not do things that are not stated in the rules. I completely understand the decision you came to, it is clear consise, uses logic and would be correct except for one thing.

The Skaven rule expresly allows the displaced model to be placed in the rear rank.

The DE rule does not. It quite clearly does not have that specific ruling. Why is that? There are only two reasons that the rule would be written differently.

1) GW are bad at writting rules and have made an error. Both rules should be the same, as per the Skaven rule.

2) The DE rule is different because........it is different.

Now if option 1 is correct and GW wanted the DE rule to be the same as the Skaven rule they would have,

1) Written the rule that way

2) In the several opportunities to produce an ammendment they would have done so.

That GW have not made any correction, that they have a different rule must mean the rule is meant to be different.

Now. It is my belief that GW intended both rules to be the same. Displace as per the Skaven rule. Unfortunately I can only go with the rules as written. As much as I would like to I am unable to displace to a rear rank because the rule does not say I may do so. I can infer a rule, add interpretations to make the case, but what I would be doing is not actually following the rule. As I mentioned rules expressly state what I may do.

Again I appologise if I sounded like I was giving a personal attack. What I meant to do was explain that the difference is in the thought processes involved.

Thought process 1. Rules expressly state what may be done. You may not do what is not in the rule.

Thought process 2. Rules may be infered from other sections of the book if they are felt to be incomplete.

Or have I got that wrong?

_________________
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"

Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.


Tue Oct 22, 2002 4:16 am
Profile
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 7:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post 
What is wrong with you ppl? How could up possibly interpret an assassin to remove
a model simply bc the rules dont expicitly state where he gets displaced to? The ether,
is that where?

My question to those of you who are soooooooo specific about the rules is this:

If they wanted you to remove a rnf, then y dont the rules say to remove him?

I'm not being a picky, rule-lawyering assmonger. I just don't think u can do what
the rules dont explicatly say u can.

Sound familiar?

_________________
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.


Tue Oct 22, 2002 10:20 am
Profile YIM
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
I completely agree that the rules one must follow the rules as expressly written. This is NOT were we differ in our discussion of the rules. Where we differ is in how we view what the rule expressly allows. My main point is that the rule does not specify at all where the model is displaced to. It is as much an assumption to say that it is removed from play as it is to say the it is displaced to a rear rank. The rule makes no allowance for either action. Note, also that you are in fact using the skaven passage to influence your reading of the rule as well. By claiming that they are different for a reason you are looking outside the bounds of the rule as written.

Quote:
It is my point that rules state what you may do in a game. That by definition means you may not do things that are not stated in the rules. I completely understand the decision you came to, it is clear consise, uses logic and would be correct except for one thing.

The Skaven rule expresly allows the displaced model to be placed in the rear rank.


According to your belief that each rule should be evaluated only by what it alone says and nothing else, than this statement seems odd. You are saying that if you did not know about the skaven rule or if it did not exist then you would play the dark elf rule by displacing a model to the rear rank. Since it is your belief that you can only use the rules as they are presented and they should be interpreted on their own merits shouldn't this actually convince you that the displace to rear rule IS the official interpretation?

Finally, aside from an argument of the officially allowable interpretation, I would like to point out that it is very easy for GW to have written these rules differently while intending them to mean the same thing. First, there are many examples of incomplete or unclear rules from the core rule book that have never been fully clarified (check out some of MageIth's posts on the GW boards). Second, note that the Skaven book was published after the DE one. It is entirely reasonable to assume that GW decided to add a bit of clarification to that book but didn't feel it was necessary to mention the DE book. They are notorious for not printing clarifications to save space if they have not been pestered incessantly or feel (often mistakenly) that a rule is abundantly clear as written.

To sum up once more:

- The rule may not expressly allow you to displace the model "to the rear rank" but by the same logic it does not allow you to "remove the model from play" or "substitute the assassin for the model".

- Simply because another rule offers a more specific definition (the skaven rule specifies "to rear rank"), does not mean the more general rule (DE "displace.") cannot mean the same thing.

- Any but the newest players are aware of GW talent for unclear and impressice rules making. It is also well known that GW did not intend for the kind of rules analysis we are engaged in, being often fond of saying "just role a d6". By this I mean, that they do not take the time to write bullet proof, carefully thought out rule sets. In some cases it is best to interpret the spirit of the rule when no better option exists. I feel this to be the case (and it seems that you agree with the intention of the rule).

What I'm saying is that the rule does not specifically allow you to remove the model or to move it to the rear. Since it does not specify exactly what to do with the model it is the players responsibility to determine where that model goes based on the most commonly understood use of the words involved, precedents set by similar rules, and an overall sense of the designers intent until a clarification appears that does offer specific clarification.

Finally, I may mistaken and the rule does expressely state that you may remove the model from play, if so please show/explain where this is.


Tue Oct 22, 2002 2:07 pm
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
One last note. In the post provided by a GW mod on the GW board he mentioned that the French DE book specifies "displace to the rear rank". If this is the case (which it seems to be), I would say that makes GW's intention regarding the dark elf hidden rule is quite clear and they are just too lazy to print a clarification (or more likely, they feel that one isn't necessary).


Tue Oct 22, 2002 2:12 pm
Profile
Beastmaster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 7:16 pm
Posts: 346
Location: Normaly Finland, just like now
Post 
displace... yep :lol:

_________________
That is my Avatar! Dont you dare to took it!

Si vis pacem para bellum
"If you want peace, prepare for war"


Tue Oct 22, 2002 3:09 pm
Profile
Cold One Knight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:41 pm
Posts: 243
Location: Netherlands
Just wanted to give my example of displace:
You have a bowl of water (aka the unit)
You throw in an orange (aka the assasin)
The water rises (the unit becomes bigger)

The orange displaces the water (pushes it aside, does NOT make it dissapear)

OK, there is a fatal flaw in my theory (the orange is already in the water, altough invisible, so the water will not rise further if it suddenly becomes visible :)), but in my games i just put the corsair in the back of the unit. All my opponents accept this for a fact, so we never have problems. It can be a happy world

_________________
Khaela Mensha Khaine


Tue Oct 22, 2002 4:04 pm
Profile
Silver Khaine Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:16 pm
Posts: 810
Location: Newcastle Oz
Post 
I'll tell you where I place him - off by himself hunting wizards, war machines, small units etc. I don't bother hiding him as quite often the unit he is with will fail a panic test and be gone. Not worth it. By himself if he joins combat by charging in beside a unit and that unit loses by 2 say he will be testing on 8 rather then 6. Next turn he may be gone but in the meantime he may hold a unit in place to prevent pursuit or to allow another charge.


Tue Oct 22, 2002 4:39 pm
Profile
Warrior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:39 am
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post 
KnightSaber wrote:
I completely agree that the rules one must follow the rules as expressly written. This is NOT were we differ in our discussion of the rules. Where we differ is in how we view what the rule expressly allows. ........snip.........Finally, I may mistaken and the rule does expressely state that you may remove the model from play, if so please show/explain where this is.


Ok, I will keep it short again.

The rule as you point out does not state what I may do with the displaced model. In fact it clearly says nothing on this point. You must agree on this.

What can be done is assume the rule should be clarified from other rule sections and using "common sense" (something in rare supply in GW rules).

The alternative is to do nothing with the displaced model. Just as the rule does nothing. This is the way the rule should be interpreted.

As you point out GW have a "talent for unclear and impressice rules". That does not mean it is up to us the players to determine what we feel the rules should be. It is up to us to bring it to the intention of GW and for GW to produce an ammendment. Note GW have already produced an ammendment on the DE book.

I expect most players to make the assumptions you have, and play the way you do. I expect that is the intention of GW. All I am saying is that it is not supported in rules. I would ask my opponent if they were preprared to accept your interpretation when I play. I could not in the name of sportsmanship insist they play that way.

_________________
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"

Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.


Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:54 pm
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:45 am
Posts: 141
Post 
Ok, here is what I hope will be my last post on this topic.

I agree that the rule does not expressely allow you to displace a model to the rear rank. They also do not expressely allow you to remove the model from play. As far as I know there is no rule anywhere in the game that covers a "displace to nowhere" effect. You are assuming that since the rule does not specify a final location for the model that it is removed from the game. This is just as large a jump in logic and just as great an unwritten rules addition (house rule if you will) as placing the model in the rear rank. The only difference is that it gives your opponent the benefit of the doubt, which I cannot contest is a very sportsmanlike gesture. We are agreed that the rule does not say where the model is displaced to yet you claim that you are following the exact wording of the rule by displacing the model out of the game. This is simply not the case.

Once you make the claim that anything not explicitly allowed by the rules should not be done you have prevented yourself from removing the model from play.

Quote:
The alternative is to do nothing with the displaced model. Just as the rule does nothing. This is the way the rule should be interpreted.


Are you claiming that model ends up in limbo? Does it count as a casualty for purposes of victory points (unit below half strength)? This is simply an unsatisfactory solution and has as much support in the rules as displacing the model to a rear rank.

Quote:
What can be done is assume the rule should be clarified from other rule sections and using "common sense" (something in rare supply in GW rules).


I admit, I do advocate using a small amount of common sense in this case. I also advocate following the spirit of the rule as best allowed by what little is written. If the writter intended that the model be replaced he would have used the term "replaced" and not "displaced". If they intended for the word displaced to be used in a manner inconsistent with it's commonly understood definition they would not have repeated it's use in the skaven book. If they intended the sentence to mean "displace... out of game" they would not have used the exact same wording in the skaven book. Keep in mind that 2 different authors wrote those books. Perhaps Allesio felt it was convenient to offer the clarification in the skaven book while gav felt that the rule as he originally wrote it in the DE book was sufficient to convey his meaning.

Simply put, I admit that from the strictest rules lawyer standpoint you have a case for removing the model. I would point out that the very same logic that prevents one from placing the model in the rear of a unit prevents you from do ANYTHING with it (including removing it from the game). I feel that the rule as written clearly indicates what the designer intends. You have admitted as much.

It is clear that I will not be able to convince you that you must extend your understanding that "you may not do anything not specifically allowed by the rules" to include your own assumptions and interpretations. So, I think I will leave the discussion at this point. I commend your dedication to fair play and hope that you will embrace the spirit and intent of the rules as well as the precise letter, as you see it.


Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:16 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software