@Sleboda: I have quite enjoyed reading quite a few of your other posts, and usually you have a good arguments building your cases. In this case, however, I think it's quite condecending to degrade it to a RAW vs RAI discussion, when it's actually a RAW vs RAW discussion. We simply disagree on the meaning of "all enemy units", where you believe it's implyed that the BRB target restrictions still apply, whereas I believe the AB overrides the BRB, as per the rules.
2 things; Firstly what the hell does RAW/RAI mean? It's really bugging me.. Secondly I think we've flogged this horse enough, both sides have made their points as well as can be made and acknowledged the value in the others POV. We will not get any further until there's a FAQ
I agree. RAI/W Rules As Intended/Written. RAI is usually used when the rules is written one way, and you want play it differently, with the argument: "GW wrote this, but really, they intended the rule to be played like this"
@Screamer. Thanks. I'm glad you generally enjoy my posts. As to the RAW/RAI thing, I sort of got off on a tangent, spurred on by the RAW reference of another poster. I wasn't trying to say that the Kroak thing itself is RAW/RAI. I agree that it's not. It's more like a "RAW but how the heck to I resolve it" sort of thing. @Nobody in particular - Yeah, the "I" in RAI means "intended" which, as you can plainly see, I take issue with since we cannot know intent without the writer telling us what his intent was. We can get clues and make educated guesses, but at the end of the day it is, without question, impossible to actually know intent unless told what it was. Hey, that reminds me of an old psychology study. If anyone can help me remember where the study was published, I'd appreciate it. It's the one where they take a person and show them a scene, one which I think (could be wrong) is frozen in time, and then ask the person about what is happening. The test subject is asked, for example, what the man in the black hat is doing. The scene it set up to look like he's threatening another person. Most people believe that is the intent anyway. After the questions are answered, they allow the person to view it from another angle (or maybe they just let the scene play out - can't recall) and it turns out the man in the black hat is trying to help the other person retrieve something or get away from a wild animal or something like that. The study is meant to show how one's own experiences and view point color perception and can lead to a complete mis-reading of intent (among other things).