Ynnari Artefact: The Lost Shroud in Seer council

The use of the word "immediately" just came up on Warhammer Tv live batrep. They played it that the combat ended, the solitaire then "immediately" soul bursted to move, and then he consolidated after that!

@TeenageAngst it depends if the aneurysm happens immediately after reading it.

Jimsolo wrote:

I'm not pretending anything--the game is rife with occurrences of simultaneous events.  Something has to determine what order they resolve in.

That something is the sequencing rule.

Jimsolo wrote:

When one rule has an additional stipulator for timing (not just when a wound is suffered, but immediately when a wound is suffered) you can't just ignore it.

It's not an additional stipulator, it's a synonym for "now". That's like saying the more wordy explanation goes first, despite them both saying the same thing. It's silly, and against the rules since in the English language it means the same thing, and we have SPECIFIC RULES for dealing with simultaneous events.

If GW wants a rule to occur before other events that would occur at X time, immediately can't be the word used when X time is now. Because that means they're both immediate. All GW would have to do, were that their intention, is to say "this ability automatically goes first when sequencing becomes an issue". If my opponent ever wants to override the sequencing rules, they're going to have to do better than pointing to the word "immediate" when compared to another ability that says "now". They both functionally mean the same thing. No where in the history of 40k have we been told in any official capacity that "immediately" somehow supercedes "now" as an indicator of what goes first, and so you can't come to your conclusion without both attributing intent to simple word selection, and ignoring the undebated and clear rules in the sequencing section.

Their intent is not clear, and in the absense of clarity, you use the sequencing rules. It's just that simple.

If we're told to roll a d3 at 1 second past 4:30pm, and we're told to roll a d6 immediately at 1 second past 4:30pm, but that we cannot do both at the same time, these are simultaneous events. Now obviously we cannot roll them both at exactly 1 second past 4:30pm, but we have to suspend disbelief, and roll them using the sequencing rules instead, because that is what we're told to do for simultaneous events. This is the EXACT situation we have here. Both of our instructions refer to a precise time, but we're unable to perform both at once. The "immediate" wording doesn't change that they're both a precise time, and happen to be the exact same time.

To me your example should be roll 1 dice at 1 second past and roll one dice a second past. Both mean the same thing, but the association people might have with the word is slightly different. So people automatically start giving more value to one of the options. To me now and immediately do not necessarily reflect the exact same things. Yes they are synonyms but like most synonyms there are situations where they are preferentially used because the meaning is a tiny bit different. I think this might imply that they are not true synonyms? For you cannot always swap them on a one to one basis.

|Meavar wrote:

To me your example should be roll 1 dice at 1 second past and roll one dice a second past.  Both mean the same thing

That example would be the same thing. It doesn't alter the outcome and would STILL fall under the sequencing rules, so what examples we use doesn't matter.

If people want to attribute meanings to words that aren't listed as such in their accepted dictionary use of the word, then I need shown a GW document giving that word a different meaning, or, while they're welcome to use their made-up version of the word in their own make-believe universe, while playing a social game with others, they're going to have to go with word meanings that have been established and agreed upon in advance by society at large, as represented through respected institutions like the oxford or merriam-webster dictionary.