Storm Banner can be reactivated?

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by Ward.

They way I've read your theory is,
-The banner is activated and it's effect is applied.
-a 1,2,3 is rolled and the banner is still active but it's rules tell us not to apply it's effects to the battlefield anymore.

Makes sense to me but I just wanted some clarification?

You nailed it! That's exactly what I was saying.

What I find disappointing is that it seems like everyone here is on some bizarre, "GW sucks at making rules and the Storm Banner is proof!" kick. They need to get over it and learn how to read rules for what they say, not what they want them to say.

[Lord Dan]

Originally Posted by Ganymede

You nailed it! That's exactly what I was saying.

What I find disappointing is that it seems like everyone here is on some bizarre, "GW sucks at making rules and the Storm Banner is proof!" kick. They need to get over it and learn how to read rules for what they say, not what they want them to say.

Even if you were technically correct, what you're arguing is completely nonsensical. Going back to your lighter analogy:

Lighter "activates". Flame eventually goes out, and the lighter is no longer moving, consuming, or producing energy of any kind. Lighter is still "active"?

No.

[JonnyTHM]

Originally Posted by Ganymede

What I find disappointing is that it seems like everyone here is on some bizarre, "GW sucks at making rules and the Storm Banner is proof!" kick. They need to get over it and learn how to read rules for what they say, not what they want them to say.

I think it's much more likely that everyone (and by everyone, I truly do mean a majority that's arguing for this interpretation) thinks that for some silly reason they had a misprint where they didn't put in "one use only" in the english book (as evidenced by it being in every other printing). However, until an errata arrives, playing rules as written, this means that the storm banner can be reactivated.

Strangely enough this means that you're actually on the opposite side: arguing that GW sucks at writing rules. You're arguing that they wouldn't make something very simply explicit by using a common, simply stated rule that can't be misinterpreted and instead would prefer to use some 'penumbra' interpretation of the difference between 'de-activated' and 'rules no longer apply'.

My suggestion is this: gw people aren't idiots that can't write rules, they're nice chaps that had a misprint at the printers (or actually, I should add the potential for a last minute change due to play testing) and we'll either receive a FAQ telling us that the storm banner can be reactivated or an errata that it is one use only.

I will eat my hat - albeit I'm not a big hat kind of guy - if they instead release an FAQ saying "C'mon it's clearly in the written rule that this should be one use only...we just didn't think we need to waste the ink on those 10 letters".

So, honestly Ganymede here's my challenge:

Order these three outcomes in the order from most to least likely:

1) GW FAQ for English saying it's indeed multiple use (and errata for all other languages)
2) GW Erratas it for English saying 'whoops I can't believe the graphics designer took out those words'
or
3) GW FAQs it for English saying "c'mon, don't you know you can't turn a computer on after it's stopped working" and tell everyone else "yeah, the one use only thing is only to make it clear because clearly you're just dumb if you can't read the english book, and need things explained to you very slowly".

(clearly with the overly argumentative style of the last one removed when you order them).

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Ward.

They way I've read your theory is,
-The banner is activated and it's effect is applied.
-a 1,2,3 is rolled and the banner is still active but it's rules tell us not to apply it's effects to the battlefield anymore.

For me, I too prefer this interpretation; however, I realize that my Skaven opponents may not.

So, until it has been clarified by GW via errata or Q&A and my Skaven opponent won't budge, it will have to be resolved via House Rule, Tourney Judge decision, or MIR.

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by Lord Dan

Even if you were technically correct, what you're arguing is completely nonsensical. Going back to your lighter analogy:

Lighter "activates". Flame eventually goes out, and the lighter is no longer moving, consuming, or producing energy of any kind. Lighter is still "active"?

No.

That's just more Beckian word play. The lighter remains activated until you deactivate it by lifting your finger from the button. Whether or not the lighter is actually active during is immaterial to the question at hand.

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by JonnyTHM

However, until an errata arrives, playing rules as written, this means that the storm banner can be reactivated.

You seem to have the perjorative definition of RAW stuck in your head, the definition that states RAW is an interpretation of the rules that is nonsensical and flies in the spirit of the game. If you are doing that, then I'll agree that, RAW, the banner can be activated every turn.

Unfortunately, that's not what RAW really means. RAW simply refers to taking what is written in a rule, and only what is written, and applying it in a game. Under such, the banner simply can't be reactivated. For one, there is no explicit permission to reactivate the banner. Secondly, even if you can squeeze some implicit permission to reactivate, we still need explicit permission to deactivate the banner in the first place; you have to turn something off before you can turn it back on again.

Quote

Strangely enough this means that you're actually on the opposite side: arguing that GW sucks at writing rules. You're arguing that they wouldn't make something very simply explicit by using a common, simply stated rule that can't be misinterpreted and instead would prefer to use some 'penumbra' interpretation of the difference between 'de-activated' and 'rules no longer apply'.

Ahh I see where the miscommunication is; you think I am arguing things that I am not actually trying to argue.

Quote

Order these three outcomes in the order from most to least likely:

1) GW FAQ for English saying it's indeed multiple use (and errata for all other languages)
2) GW Erratas it for English saying 'whoops I can't believe the graphics designer took out those words'
or
3) GW FAQs it for English saying "c'mon, don't you know you can't turn a computer on after it's stopped working" and tell everyone else "yeah, the one use only thing is only to make it clear because clearly you're just dumb if you can't read the english book, and need things explained to you very slowly".

(clearly with the overly argumentative style of the last one removed when you order them).

How is any of this pertinant? We're talking about what the rule says, not what a FAQ answer would contain.

[jaxom]

Ok, so I keep seeing the argument that people anyoen who says this is one-use are putting words into the description that are not there....

Those of you who are advocating mutli-use. Can you please explain to me what text in the description supports the argument that it should *not* be reactivated on every players turn? I mean... If we're going to play it RAW, why not just activate it on every enemy player turn whether or not it is already in effect or even if it just ended because of a test. Nothing in the description says that the test comes after the activation "at the beginning of any player turn". So why not just run it all the time?

[Slicktober]

Quote

Those of you who are advocating mutli-use. Can you please explain to me what text in the description supports the argument that it should *not* be reactivated on every players turn? I mean... If we're going to play it RAW, why not just activate it on every enemy player turn whether or not it is already in effect or even if it just ended because of a test. Nothing in the description says that the test comes after the activation "at the beginning of any player turn". So why not just run it all the time?

I agree. What is your point?

[EldarRaven]

Originally Posted by Ganymede

That's just more Beckian word play. The lighter remains activated until you deactivate it by lifting your finger from the button. Whether or not the lighter is actually active during is immaterial to the question at hand.

Depends if this magic lighter is a zippo kind....they require no button and can go "out" if the wind, etc blows it out...its still "active" and to be Activated again you just spin the wheel...

I think the problem with your arugments Ganymede is that your assuming things that are not there or can't be found...you haven't even quoted a page in the BRB about this silly notion of "deactivated before it can be reactivated" Bull S#$%! I'm not attacking you I'm attcking your logic and the fact you have no rules to back your logic up other then silly lighter examples and wordplay.

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by EldarRaven

I think the problem with your arugments Ganymede is that your assuming things that are not there or can't be found...you haven't even quoted a page in the BRB about this silly notion of "deactivated before it can be reactivated"

What you need to understand is that the rulebooks are predicated on the acknowlegement that they are written in english. In order to understand the rules, we need to understand english. While not every term in the armybook is not an explicitly defined part of Warhammer jargon, every word does have a defined english definition. In instances where we are dealing with such terms, we are compelled to use what the words actually mean.

In other words, your argument here is moot, and is little more than a red herring. Aren't you glad that called you out so we can start talking about more pertinant issues?

[Slicktober]

Originally Posted by Ganymede

What you need to understand is that the rulebooks are predicated on the acknowlegement that they are written in english. In order to understand the rules, we need to understand english. While not every term in the armybook is not an explicitly defined part of Warhammer jargon, every word does have a defined english definition. In instances where we are dealing with such terms, we are compelled to use what the words actually mean.

In other words, your argument here is moot, and is little more than a red herring. Aren't you glad that called you out so we can start talking about more pertinant issues?

No, what you need to understand is that the rulebooks are predicated on the acknowlegement that they are written in english. In order to understand the rules, we need to understand english. While not every term in the armybook is not an explicitly defined part of Warhammer jargon, every word does have a defined english definition. In instances where we are dealing with such terms, we are compelled to use what the words actually mean.

In other words, your argument here is moot, and is little more than a red herring. Aren't you glad that called you out so we can start talking about more pertinant issues?

[JonnyTHM]

It's rather humorous for someone complaining of red herrings to use ad hominen attacks.

The question of what a FAQ would contain is actually an argument of whether your claims are substantiated by GW's actions. You claim that your argument is based upon plain understanding of English, but there is clearly an ambiguity coming from the idea of activation that you can't refute. I hope to lord you're not going to throw back that you're a lawyer when I call you on this, but you're not able to assemble meaning of sentences by reading dictionary definitions of each word. In fact, the context of the rule and the context of how people have written other rules reflects how the words should be interpreted. Your definition of reactivated is unnecessarily narrow and doesn't reflect its use in the living English language.

I'm going to go on a limb and say that it's not the case where everyone saying RAW the banner is reusable speaks English as a second language, in fact I'm going to go further and say that I'm sure that several of them probably have some further qualification reflecting a higher education in the subject. (In case you're going to try to point this out as a fallacy, it's in fact not, it's a refutation of your implicit attack)

The rule is formulated very concretely:

1) It states that the banner can be activated at the beginning of any player's turn.
2) It then states the effects of the banner being active.
3) It then states that the effects of the banner will end at a certain condition.

The third statement in plain english is a statement of the conditions under which the banner will become inactive (here I'm using any of several definitions of active including "effective", "engaged in action" or "causing activity or change; capable of exerting influence").

The very definition of active is negated after the effects that it causes end. Otherwise the only thing you're requiring for it to be 'active' is its existence, and this gives us a logical contradiction with the fact that the banner is not 'active' prior to the player choosing to activate it at the beginning of a turn.

- I practically feel like writing q.e.d. at the end, but I feel it would be insulting to spell out the 'theorem' that I feel I'm being compelled to prove.

[Slicktober]

Quote

the third statement in plain english is a statement of the conditions under which the banner will become inactive (here i'm using any of several definitions of active including "effective", "engaged in action" or "causing activity or change; capable of exerting influence").

BUT BUT BUT!!! IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS BEEN DEACTIVATED!!!! THINGS ARE ACTIVE EVEN WHEN THEY ARE INACTIVE!!!

[wildkarrde0]

so active volcano is the same as inactive one then by your logic geologist might have a field with that one since a inactive volcano can be become active again under the right conditions! oh wait that could mean that so could the storm banner could become active again just a thought

[Slicktober]

Once the volcano has become activated, even if it later becomes inactive, it can never be activated again!

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by JonnyTHM

It's rather humorous for someone complaining of red herrings to use ad hominen attacks.

Go look up Ad Hominem. I don't think it means what you think it means. Not once did I impugn someone's character to make my argument.

Quote

The question of what a FAQ would contain is actually an argument of whether your claims are substantiated by GW's actions. You claim that your argument is based upon plain understanding of English, but there is clearly an ambiguity coming from the idea of activation that you can't refute.

It is certainly true that the wording of this item is controversial, but anticipating the motivations and possible answers given by the FAQ crew is largely pointless. Often times, FAQ answers are issued simply because a specific issue is controversial. Such doesn't take away or add to any previous interpretation, so is just idle supposition.

Quote

I hope to lord you're not going to throw back that you're a lawyer when I call you on this, but you're not able to assemble meaning of sentences by reading dictionary definitions of each word.

Just a law student.

And no one is advocating what you state here, certainly not me.

Quote

In fact, the context of the rule and the context of how people have written other rules reflects how the words should be interpreted. Your definition of reactivated is unnecessarily narrow and doesn't reflect its use in the living English language.

For one, I would wholeheartedly disagree with you when you say I use 'deactivated' contrary to common usage. Luckily you haven't actually justified your position, so I don't need to spend time refuting you.

Secondly, no one is arguing that context doesn't matter, certainly not me.

Quote

I'm going to go on a limb and say that it's not the case where everyone saying RAW the banner is reusable speaks English as a second language, in fact I'm going to go further and say that I'm sure that several of them probably have some further qualification reflecting a higher education in the subject. (In case you're going to try to point this out as a fallacy, it's in fact not, it's a refutation of your implicit attack)

You must have misinterpreted a previous post as I never intended for this particular line of thought. Be content when I say I don't take that position nor have I intended to put forth that position with my previous posts.

Quote

The rule is formulated very concretely:

1) It states that the banner can be activated at the beginning of any player's turn.
2) It then states the effects of the banner being active.
3) It then states that the effects of the banner will end at a certain condition.

I'm glad you organized this list as it saves me the trouble. You'll note that the third step only ends the effect and not the activation.

Quote

The third statement in plain english is a statement of the conditions under which the banner will become inactive (here I'm using any of several definitions of active including "effective", "engaged in action" or "causing activity or change; capable of exerting influence").

Your folly is in replacing words in the rules with loosely related terms in order to suit your interpretation.

Quote

The very definition of active is negated after the effects that it causes end. Otherwise the only thing you're requiring for it to be 'active' is its existence, and this gives us a logical contradiction with the fact that the banner is not 'active' prior to the player choosing to activate it at the beginning of a turn.

I think you are being obtuse, and I don't think you fully grasp what I have been saying this whole time. I would highly advise you to take another look at my previous posts as it might clear up some misunderstandings. You have a trend of implying that I am arguing things that I am not actually arguing.

[Ganymede]

Originally Posted by wildkarrde0

so active volcano is the same as inactive one then by your logic geologist might have a field with that one since a inactive volcano can be become active again under the right conditions! oh wait that could mean that so could the storm banner could become active again just a thought

Fallacy of improper analogy alert!

[starlight]

Inability to play nice = Thread Closed.

starlight