Hi,
After re-reading carefully my (french) rulebook and a ruling by a Games Designer on the GW Games Dev Board, I have come to to the following conclusion :
The assassin IS NOT DISGUISED to look like a trooper, it is not written anywhere. He's HIDDEN just like a fanatic in a goblin unit. When he comes out, he goes in the front rank and the corresponding trooper goes into the back (that is written in my army book, and the word displace indicates it in the english army book). You purchase 20 corsairs and 1 assassin, and will have a 21 unit when the assassin is revealed
Vador
assassin where put on the regiment need help here?
Moderators: Layne, The Dread Knights
Dont you love these meaningless debates.
KnightSaber wrote:I agree that the rule does not expressely allow you to displace a model to the rear rank.
Yes, we both agree on this.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
Yes, agree with this.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
Actualy I said if the rule does not allow me to do anything with it, then that is what I do.
KnightSaber wrote: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.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.
See above.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
I am claiming the rule is badly written and I have no idea where the model ends up. In lieu of an offical response (which is needed) I can only follow the written rules.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
COmpletely agree. What my point is, is that you are using common sense in interpreting the rules. Without knowing what was intended by the game designer all we can go on is the rules.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
Again, an eminately reasonable assumption, but an assamption none the less.
KnightSaber wrote: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).
See my note on doing nothing. Besides I only ever go by the strict interpretation of the rules. Otherwise I feel it starts to become subjective and no longer objective.
KnightSaber wrote:I feel that the rule as written clearly indicates what the designer intends. You have admitted as much.
Yep, we just disagree on how rules should be intrepted. Note this is different then as to what the rule says.
KnightSaber wrote: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.
Not a problem. However I should point out I never intrept by the "spirit and intent" of the rules. I only wish we knew what they were. Each person has there own idea as to what this means. If GW were to issue some subjective statements on the intention of each section of rules (not necessary each rule) we would know.
Until next time them
"Video melior protoque, deteriora sequor"
Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.
Though I see what the better things are, even so I follow the worse.
