When Lurking, can you "charge" now?
|
|
Post by Davor on Jul 13, 2012 2:22:30 GMT
My head just exploded. O, F C, almost looks like math equations. I just can't comprehend what you guys are saying there LOL. Fleet alone doesn't allow units to assault. That's 5th edition. Just remember, Dark Angles had a 4th editon codex. They could not turbo boost during a scout move. Nobody could do tht in 4th editon. In 5th editon, people could do that, became legal EXCEPT, for DA because it explicitly said they couldn't while every other SM could. So now I believe we have the same problem again. A prior editon rule made for the prior editon, but had to be used because the way it was written. So I wonder if we have another case, while not a negative would be a positive if we go on how past precedence worked. Even though while everyone knew how the new rule was suppose to go, people and GW gave DA the shaft there. So that is why I see it could work in our favor. To be on the safe side, I will not use the rule until we can get an official answer or if we are mega playing by house rules.  |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 13, 2012 3:02:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Jul 13, 2012 11:58:31 GMT
Davor:
Using symbolic reasoning actually simplifies and clarifies things. It's much like writing 2^2 rather than "Two to the power of two." in that it's more succinct and gets the weird stuff in natural languages out of the way. Basically there's a reason algebraic has been adopted by the west for everything mathemetical.
The utility of symbolic reasoning here is that it helps us identify differences in how people are reading the sentence in question, by reducing the rules to their bare logical structures. The fact that there is a disagreement on translation is pretty obvious, but I think it's taken till now to understand what the exact point of disagreement is.
acmemyst:
It seems I was mistaken, but I think we have clarified the point of disagreement. It's still the interpretation of the constructon "may not...unless" but I think it's a matter of deciding where, in English grammar, the negation lies.
The phrase "may not assault unless" seems to be variously interpreted to mean "may not-assault unless" or "may-not assault unless".
So either a unit with Onslaught and Fleet may not-charge, or a unit with Onslaught and Fleet may charge. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Jul 13, 2012 12:55:49 GMT
This thread is like that new special rule, It Will Not Die.
|
|
|
|
Post by acmemyst on Jul 13, 2012 14:28:39 GMT
So either a unit with Onslaught and Fleet may not-charge, or a unit with Onslaught and Fleet may charge. What do you think? I think that there´s not much left open for interpretation. The rule does not specify either way, so, play by BGB. ...the correct, full, translation would appear to be what we stated earlier, i.e., O -> (~F -> ~C) 1. O -> (~F -> ~C) (Assumption) 2. O (Assumption) 3. F (Assumption) 4. (~F -> ~C) (MP, 1,2) 5. (~~F v ~C) (MI, 4) 6. (F v ~C) (Double negation, 5) 7. (TRUE v ~C) (3, 6) Just as a final illustration; C (or ~C) is left unspecified. This thread is like that new special rule, It Will Not Die. This. Also, I'm done with it, as I feel that it really should be clear for everyone involved by now. |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 13, 2012 18:33:01 GMT
As we wrap up... just want to highlight that Nurglitch has spent plenty of time/space casting insults, but *still* refuses to answer any of the direct questions.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Jul 13, 2012 19:07:17 GMT
Feel free to restate those direct questions, numbering them so I can provide point by point answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by fragile on Jul 14, 2012 3:32:32 GMT
Hahaha...
|
|
|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Jul 15, 2012 8:07:28 GMT
Feel free to restate those direct questions, numbering them so I can provide point by point answers. I think he did... several times >.> Or was that the joke? |
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Jul 15, 2012 21:11:48 GMT
I think, things were siad, and not sure what the comments are for what was said. Sadly some personal opnions were used so that could have thrown someone off into what to say thinking it was a personal attack.
Maybe it's time to lock this thread and start all over again, WITH NO PERSONAL ATTACKS or PERSONAL OPNIONS, but with proof, facts, and PAGE NUMBERS.
Does this sound good?
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Jul 15, 2012 21:38:23 GMT
Sure, why not? It'll be interesting to see how coredump does when he can't resort to personal attacks and false equivalences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Jul 16, 2012 0:18:40 GMT
Sure, why not? It'll be interesting to see how coredump does when he can't resort to personal attacks and false equivalences. Isn't that a personal attack or false equivalence?... This thread confuses me. |
|
|
|
Post by fragile on Jul 16, 2012 2:04:22 GMT
And the thread rolls a 6 for FNP and lives on. Let it die, its obvious all the parties disagree and this thread wont fix or change anyones mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 16, 2012 2:27:40 GMT
No, we all agreed by the end. Well, everyone except Nurglitch.
Actually, I don't know. He stopped posting once Acme and I showed his rigorous logic proof supported what we had been saying all along. So I am not sure if he agreed with us or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Jul 16, 2012 2:42:13 GMT
I disagreed on the point that I disagreed with the translation of the rules. The logic is valid, but the argument unsound because it relies on a false premise. The false premise being that the sentence in question is properly translated as 'A unit under the effect of Onslaught may not charge, unless it also has the Fleet rule, in which case it may not charge.'
|
|
This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.
Adeptus Astartes, Age of Sigmar, Battlefleet Gothic, Black Flame, Black Library, the Black Library logo, BL Publishing, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Blood Bowl, the Blood Bowl logo, The Blood Bowl Spike Device, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos device, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, City of the Damned, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Dark Future, the Double-Headed/Imperial Eagle device, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Epic, Eye of Terror, Fanatic, the Fanatic logo, the Fanatic II logo, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, the Hammer of Sigmar logo, Horned Rat logo, Inferno, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khemri, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Marauder, Mordheim, the Mordheim logo, Necromunda, Necromunda stencil logo, Necromunda Plate logo, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Stormcast Enternals, Skaven, the Skaven symbol devices, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Talisman, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tomb Kings, Trio of Warriors, Twin Tailed Comet Logo, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer Historical, Warhammer Online, Warhammer 40k Device, Warhammer World logo, Warmaster, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Blood Bowl game, the Warhammer world, the Talisaman world, Age of Sigmar and the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 1975-2020, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.
Fleet alone doesn't 
"
