Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rogueeyes wrote:The ambiguity is that I can split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences.

You can not "split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences" If you are going by the British standard for the English Language.

puma713 wrote:Here, maybe this is a better way to break it down for you:

You have a GK Rhino. You want to cast Fortitude. How are you going to do that? - You're not a psyker.

Well, you have a special rule that makes you a psyker just for the purposes of psychic tests.

Oh, in that case, I'll try to hood your Fortitude.

Your special rule also makes you Ld 10 for the purposes of Psychic Hoods. I don't hood it. You cast Fortitude.

Now, you go back to being a normal Rhino. You're no longer a psyker. You're no longer Ld 10.

Now how many psychic powers do you get to use per turn? Your rhino is not a psyker for the purpose of determining how many psychic powers you can use, so you can use 0.

Unfortunately you're not a psyker so you can't use any powers, so you never get to take the psychic test for Fortitude.

Hhmm Nemesor, Necronlord, etc lol seems kinda funny that 2 of the people are named after necrons the codex that constantly keeps on giving when it came to misunderstood rules. lol Sorry I find it kinda ironic. Deathray, entropic touch, writhing wordscape, Everliving+Ap, etc.

DeathReaper wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:The ambiguity is that I can split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences.

You can not "split the sentence up as multiple ways and still have it retain the ideas that it holds and obey both the original ideas and the structure of sentences" If you are going by the British standard for the English Language.

Are you saying there's no ambiguity in the sentence given, or in the English language in general?

The rule in this case is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in two different ways.

biccat wrote:The rule in this case is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in two different ways.

There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

You would have to have a comma, or Semi-colon for the two ideas to be different, and have the "For the purposes of..." only apply to the "Leadership 10" part.

As it stands the "For the purposes of..." clause applies to both of the conditions that come before it, as there is no break in the sentence but simply a list of things that the vehicle is.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now how many psychic powers do you get to use per turn? Your rhino is not a psyker for the purpose of determining how many psychic powers you can use, so you can use 0.

Unfortunately you're not a psyker so you can't use any powers, so you never get to take the psychic test for Fortitude.

Except that the Fortitude power specifically allows its use, as proven a few posts ago.

DeathReaper wrote:

biccat wrote:The rule in this case is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in two different ways.

There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

You would have to have a comma, or Semi-colon for the two ideas to be different, and have the "For the purposes of..." only apply to the "Leadership 10" part.

As it stands the "For the purposes of..." clause applies to both of the conditions that come before it, as there is no break in the sentence but simply a list of things that the vehicle is.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now how many psychic powers do you get to use per turn? Your rhino is not a psyker for the purpose of determining how many psychic powers you can use, so you can use 0.

Unfortunately you're not a psyker so you can't use any powers, so you never get to take the psychic test for Fortitude.

Except that the Fortitude power specifically allows its use, as proven a few posts ago.

Fortitude is listed under Psychic Powers. It tells you when it can be cast (in the movement phase). It does not say how many powers a turn the rhino may use.

It is not a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of how many powers it may use per turn. Having a list of Psychic Powers in the unit description does not tell you how many you can use per turn. Some may have 3, but are only able to use 1, or some may have 2 and be able to use 2 per turn.

Being allowed to take a psychic test does not grant permission to use a psychic power. Unless the rhino is a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of determining how many powers it may use per turn, then the number of powers it may use per turn is not defined. It is not allowed by RAW to use psychic powers.

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

As was pointed out earlier, the sentence can be either:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

or:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

It is unclear whether the phrase "for the purposes of..." applies to either the psyker or Ld. 10. Given that vehicles don't have a Ld. score, the latter explanation makes more sense.

It is necessary for a vehicle to have a Ld. score for the purpose of psychic tests and hoods, but it is not necessary for it to be a psyker only sometimes.

DeathReaper wrote:You would have to have a comma, or Semi-colon for the two ideas to be different, and have the "For the purposes of..." only apply to the "Leadership 10" part.

No you wouldn't. In fact, I'm not sure such a construction would be be grammatically correct.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Fortitude is listed under Psychic Powers. It tells you when it can be cast (in the movement phase). It does not say how many powers a turn the rhino may use.

It is not a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of how many powers it may use per turn. Having a list of Psychic Powers in the unit description does not tell you how many you can use per turn. Some may have 3, but are only able to use 1, or some may have 2 and be able to use 2 per turn.

Being allowed to take a psychic test does not grant permission to use a psychic power. Unless the rhino is a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of determining how many powers it may use per turn, then the number of powers it may use per turn is not defined. It is not allowed by RAW to use psychic powers.

Correcting you is getting tedious.

Let's do this the easy way. Pretend you've never played 40K before, but you know you want to play Grey Knights, so you pick up the codex. Then you read the rule for Psychic Pilot, seeing that your Rhinos have this special rule. It says that "A vehicle with this rule is treated as a psyker and leadership 10 for the purpose of psychic tests and psychic hoods."

Hmm, that's interesting. Well, what the heck does that mean? What does being treated as a psyker mean? So I flip to page 50 of the BRB and I find the Psykers section.

Oh, then I find in the second paragraph, first sentence:

"Psykers can use one psychic power per player turn."

Well, that's how I can cast that psychic power I have! I decide I want to cast a power. To do that, I invoke Psychic Pilot, giving me both permission and means to cast a psychic power.

What's your next argument that can be just as quickly shot down?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

Umm, yes there is. The prepositional phrase that follows the direct object modifies the verb "is treated" not "leadership 10". The sentence is telling you that a vehicle is treated a certain way. You need to know when it is treated that way. That is what the prepositional phrase is for. To separate them is grammatically incorrect. To read it the way that you two are reading it is to read it incorrectly. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing that that does not follow the rules of English grammar, just as 2+2=5 doesn't follow the rules of mathematics.

biccat wrote:As was pointed out earlier, the sentence can be either:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

or:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

Apparently, you didn't read my rebuttal. You cannot parse the sentence this way. The poster that posted this was not taking all of the predicate into account, which accounts for his (and your) misunderstanding.

puma713 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Fortitude is listed under Psychic Powers. It tells you when it can be cast (in the movement phase). It does not say how many powers a turn the rhino may use.

It is not a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of how many powers it may use per turn. Having a list of Psychic Powers in the unit description does not tell you how many you can use per turn. Some may have 3, but are only able to use 1, or some may have 2 and be able to use 2 per turn.

Being allowed to take a psychic test does not grant permission to use a psychic power. Unless the rhino is a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of determining how many powers it may use per turn, then the number of powers it may use per turn is not defined. It is not allowed by RAW to use psychic powers.

Correcting you is getting tedious.

Let's do this the easy way. Pretend you've never played 40K before, but you know you want to play Grey Knights, so you pick up the codex. Then you read the rule for Psychic Pilot, seeing that your Rhinos have this special rule. It says that "A vehicle with this rule is treated as a psyker and leadership 10 for the purpose of psychic tests and psychic hoods."

Hmm, that's interesting. Well, what the heck does that mean? What does being treated as a psyker mean? So I flip to page 50 of the BRB and I find the Psykers section.

Oh, then I find in the second paragraph, first sentence:

"Psykers can use one psychic power per player turn."

Well, that's how I can cast that psychic power I have! I decide I want to cast a power. To do that, I invoke Psychic Pilot, giving me both permission and means to cast a psychic power.

Your argument is "because a 40k novice would read it that way"? I must say that is a novel approach for YMDC and completely fails any test of RAW for the purposes of this argument and any other. (see what I did there?)

If you mean anyone can read the title that says "Psychic Pilot" and understand that it means the vehicle is treated as a psyker for all game purposes then I would agree with you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

Umm, yes there is. The prepositional phrase that follows the direct object modifies the verb "is treated" not "leadership 10". The sentence is telling you that a vehicle is treated a certain way. You need to know when it is treated that way. That is what the prepositional phrase is for. To separate them is grammatically incorrect. To read it the way that you two are reading it is to read it incorrectly. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing that that does not follow the rules of English grammar, just as 2+2=5 doesn't follow the rules of mathematics.

biccat wrote:As was pointed out earlier, the sentence can be either:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

or:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

Apparently, you didn't read my rebuttal. You cannot parse the sentence this way. The poster that posted this was not taking all of the predicate into account, which accounts for his (and your) misunderstanding.

He has stated both sides of this argument. You are claiming he cannot parse the sentence this way, meaning - both are wrong?

If not, re-stating the side of this argument you agree with, does not invalidate the other that you don't agree with. Do you agree that one of these two is the case you are claiming?

ND - not if they have the slightest understanding of what "for the purposes of" means

It is setting out a limit, a condition, on when X is true.

If I say you are catholic for the purposes of attending Mass on a sunday, then you are only a catholic when attending Mass - because that is what the grammar parses to.

You can disagree, but it shows your continuing lack of understanding of the English language.

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

Umm, yes there is. The prepositional phrase that follows the direct object modifies the verb "is treated" not "leadership 10". The sentence is telling you that a vehicle is treated a certain way. You need to know when it is treated that way. That is what the prepositional phrase is for. To separate them is grammatically incorrect. To read it the way that you two are reading it is to read it incorrectly. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing that that does not follow the rules of English grammar, just as 2+2=5 doesn't follow the rules of mathematics.

No, I'm not reading it incorrectly.

The fact that you fail to see the ambiguity in the sentence shows a clear lack of understanding. The sentence can be legitimately read in one of two ways.

puma713 wrote:Apparently, you didn't read my rebuttal. You cannot parse the sentence this way. The poster that posted this was not taking all of the predicate into account, which accounts for his (and your) misunderstanding.

I did. Your rebuttal was incorrect.

There are two ways to read the sentence. Full stop.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If I say you are catholic for the purposes of attending Mass on a sunday, then you are only a catholic when attending Mass - because that is what the grammar parses to.

What if I say "I am a Christian and a Catholic for the purposes of attending Mass on a sunday."

Am I only Christian on Sunday?

puma713 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Fortitude is listed under Psychic Powers. It tells you when it can be cast (in the movement phase). It does not say how many powers a turn the rhino may use.

It is not a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of how many powers it may use per turn. Having a list of Psychic Powers in the unit description does not tell you how many you can use per turn. Some may have 3, but are only able to use 1, or some may have 2 and be able to use 2 per turn.

Being allowed to take a psychic test does not grant permission to use a psychic power. Unless the rhino is a psyker mastery level 1 for the purpose of determining how many powers it may use per turn, then the number of powers it may use per turn is not defined. It is not allowed by RAW to use psychic powers.

Correcting you is getting tedious.

Let's do this the easy way. Pretend you've never played 40K before, but you know you want to play Grey Knights, so you pick up the codex. Then you read the rule for Psychic Pilot, seeing that your Rhinos have this special rule. It says that "A vehicle with this rule is treated as a psyker and leadership 10 for the purpose of psychic tests and psychic hoods."

Hmm, that's interesting. Well, what the heck does that mean? What does being treated as a psyker mean? So I flip to page 50 of the BRB and I find the Psykers section.

Oh, then I find in the second paragraph, first sentence:

"Psykers can use one psychic power per player turn."

Well, that's how I can cast that psychic power I have! I decide I want to cast a power. To do that, I invoke Psychic Pilot, giving me both permission and means to cast a psychic power.

What's your next argument that can be just as quickly shot down?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

Umm, yes there is. The prepositional phrase that follows the direct object modifies the verb "is treated" not "leadership 10". The sentence is telling you that a vehicle is treated a certain way. You need to know when it is treated that way. That is what the prepositional phrase is for. To separate them is grammatically incorrect. To read it the way that you two are reading it is to read it incorrectly. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing that that does not follow the rules of English grammar, just as 2+2=5 doesn't follow the rules of mathematics.

biccat wrote:As was pointed out earlier, the sentence can be either:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

or:
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as being a psyker for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.
A vehicle with this special rule is treated as Leadership 10 for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods.

Apparently, you didn't read my rebuttal. You cannot parse the sentence this way. The poster that posted this was not taking all of the predicate into account, which accounts for his (and your) misunderstanding.

A vehicle is the subject.

Is treated as being a psyker and is treated as leadership 10 both modify the subject of the sentence.

The ambiguity is that the "for the purposes of ..." pertains to either being a psyker and leadership 10 or just leadership 10. I can parse it either way, which changes the meaning of the sentence, which is the basis of the argument of it being ambiguous. Stating that I cannot parse the sentence in this way is incorrect because it is absolutely valid to parse the sentence in this way. There are two possible objects that can be modified by the clause "for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods." Logically there is no reason to limit when the vehicle is a psyker. This actually creates more logical problems whereas limiting when a vehicle is leadership 10 does not. Leadership is required for psychic powers whereas leadership is not required for being a psyker.

In order to cast psychic powers you must be a psyker. You are not required to be any specific leadership. Leadership 8 can cast a psychic power as can leadership 9 or leadership 6. Something without a leadership value cannot cast a psychic power because it is impossible to take a leadership test without one.

Basically,
You can be a psyker without psychic powers
You cannot cast a psychic power without a leadership value.
Thus leadership is limited to psychic powers and psychic hoods whereas psyker is limited only to the model.

Psyker leads to psychic powers and psychic hoods which lead to leadership 10. See the sequence there? Psyker comes before. Leadership comes after. Stating that you can have a psychic power without being a psyker is a logical fallacy because you must use the rules under the psyker section of the BRB in order to use the psychic powers. If you are not a psyker then you are not permitted to use these rules because it would automatically make you a psyker because you are using the psyker rules.

Please cite where only psykers can cast powers. Please note that the section on psykers states they can cast powers, however, please show me a rule that states non-psykers cannot cast powers.

Happyjew wrote:Please cite where only psykers can cast powers. Please note that the section on psykers states they can cast powers, however, please show me a rule that states non-psykers cannot cast powers.

Good luck with that. I'm sure you'll be as successful as I ever was.

Happyjew wrote:Please cite where only psykers can cast powers. Please note that the section on psykers states they can cast powers, however, please show me a rule that states non-psykers cannot cast powers.

If you are using the rules under Psykers then you are using the rules for psykers. Psychic powers are listed under psykers. Psychic powers are a subset of the psyker rules. Thus being a psyker for psychic powers. If you are not a psyker then you do not have permission to use the psyker rules or any subsection of them. Being granted the ability to cast psychic powers means you must use the psychic powers rules which are a subset of the psyker rules thus making you a psyker as soon as you use a psychic power.

rogueeyes wrote:If you are using the rules under Psykers then you are using the rules for psykers. Psychic powers are listed under psykers. Psychic powers are a subset of the psyker rules. Thus being a psyker for psychic powers. If you are not a psyker then you do not have permission to use the psyker rules or any subsection of them. Being granted the ability to cast psychic powers means you must use the psychic powers rules which are a subset of the psyker rules thus making you a psyker as soon as you use a psychic power.

Avenger Shuriken Catapults are listed under Dire Avengers. If you are not a Dire Avenger then you do not have permission to use the Dire Avenger weapons or any subsection of them. Being granted the ability to wield Avenger Shuriken Catapults means you must use the Avenger Shuriken Catapult rules which are a subset of the Dire Avenger rules thus making you a Dire Avenger as soon as you use an Avenger Shuriken Catapult.

Hmm, same argument that you are making, and guess what, it fails.

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:There is no reason to assume the "For the purposes of..." does not apply to the whole sentence.

There's likewise no reason to assume the "for the purposes of..." applies to the whole sentence.

Umm, yes there is. The prepositional phrase that follows the direct object modifies the verb "is treated" not "leadership 10". The sentence is telling you that a vehicle is treated a certain way. You need to know when it is treated that way. That is what the prepositional phrase is for. To separate them is grammatically incorrect. To read it the way that you two are reading it is to read it incorrectly. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing that that does not follow the rules of English grammar, just as 2+2=5 doesn't follow the rules of mathematics.

No, I'm not reading it incorrectly.

The fact that you fail to see the ambiguity in the sentence shows a clear lack of understanding. The sentence can be legitimately read in one of two ways.

Seriously? I'm the one giving you a grammatical breakdown of the rules and I'm showing a "clear lack of understanding"?

Here the flaw of your reasoning rears its head again. If someone said 2+2=5, you'd say, "no, that's not correct." That is just as incorrect as you are saying that this sentence can be read in one of two ways - it literally cannot. Just because you are reading it incorrectly doesn't mean there are two ways to read it.

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:Apparently, you didn't read my rebuttal. You cannot parse the sentence this way. The poster that posted this was not taking all of the predicate into account, which accounts for his (and your) misunderstanding.

I did. Your rebuttal was incorrect.

Okay, if it was incorrect, explain to me how. Do not simply say "there are two ways to read this sentence." Explain to me exactly how. I have spent my time outlining the argument against it. Explain to me how you're allowed to take the direct object of a sentence and separate it so you can apply a prepositional phrase to either part of it. The reason you cannot do this is because it breaks the rules of grammar.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rogueeyes wrote:

The ambiguity is that the "for the purposes of ..." pertains to either being a psyker and leadership 10 or just leadership 10. I can parse it either way, which changes the meaning of the sentence, which is the basis of the argument of it being ambiguous. Stating that I cannot parse the sentence in this way is incorrect because it is absolutely valid to parse the sentence in this way. There are two possible objects that can be modified by the clause "for the purposes of Psychic Tests and Psychic Hoods."

This is blatantly incorrect. If you remove the prepositional phrase, you will have a complete sentence. You will have a subject and a predicate. The prepositional phrase completes the what? What must it complete? It cannot describe the subject, because that doesn't make any sense. The prepositional phrase must modify the predicate. It creates what is called the "complete predicate". It modifies "is treated as a psyker and leadership 10. . ".

What you're saying is that the prepositonal phrase "for the purpose of. . ." is describing Leadership 10 alone. How are you parsing Leadership 10 out of the direct object? You can see, very very very clearly that the predicate is "a psyker and leadership 10." Remove the prepositional phrase, and it all becomes clear. It cannot describe Leadership 10 without also describing being a psyker.

Prepositional phrases are adjectives and adverbs. This particular prepositional phrase is not an adjective - it is an adverb describing why you're treating a vehicle the way that you are.

This is painfully clear.

Once more:

A vehicle (subject)
is treated as (verb)
a psyker and leadership 10 (direct object)

That is your complete sentence. You cannot have the prepositonal phrase describe 'leadership 10' without it also describing 'a psyker'.

It's like you're saying:

2+2=4
2+2=5

"Well, there's two ways to read this."

This thread seems to have gone about as far as it can. If anyone has a new argument, feel free to start a new thread.