If a unit is forced to disembark from a transport the opposing player destroys on their turn, can the controlling player then move that unit in his next movement phase?

I ask because the line under the disembark rules "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn,” seems to disallow it.

Yes the unit can move. The unit acts as if it disembarked on it's own turn basically, so does all the normal actions beyond charging (unless the transport was an Assault Transport)

But if it counts as having moved after it disembarked on the opponents turn how can it move again?

Cindis wrote:
I"After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn,”

This sentence states what the unit may do during its Shooting Phase. I don't think it describes the Movement Phase.

Also don't forget the Pinning test!

Because the disembark on the enemy turn counts as its move? It says it can shoot and run but it looks like they cant actually move on their turn if the opposing player destroyed their transport during his turn.

It sounds like you're hung up on the ambiguous English here. I think I see how "counting as having moved" could apply outside of the Shooting Phase, but I don't think anyone plays it that way.

It counts as having moved for that one player turn. So during the rest of your opponent's shooting phase and their assault phase, you count as moved. Then the turn ends, as does the effect of the disembarking.

Disembark only affects one turn. It's not going to affect both your opponents turn and your turn, other than that you can't assault out of a Rhino that blows up on your opponent's turn.

demonwalker wrote:
It counts as having moved for that one player turn. So during the rest of your opponent's shooting phase and their assault phase, you count as moved. Then the turn ends, as does the effect of the disembarking.

Disembark only affects one turn. It's not going to affect both your opponents turn and your turn, other than that you can't assault out of a Rhino that blows up on your opponent's turn.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

If you are forced to disembark in your opponent's turn, you count as having moved in your subsequent shooting and assault phases.

Barring any other effects being applied, the unit can still move as normal, because it only counts as having moved for those specific phases.

demonwalker wrote:
It counts as having moved for that one player turn. So during the rest of your opponent's shooting phase and their assault phase, you count as moved. Then the turn ends, as does the effect of the disembarking.

Disembark only affects one turn. It's not going to affect both your opponents turn and your turn, other than that you can't assault out of a Rhino that blows up on your opponent's turn.

This is incorrect. The rule says:

"After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

When it says "that turn" it refers to the turn in which the models' subsequent Shooting phase occurs. Clearly it doesn't affect both your opponent's and your turn because you cannot manifest your psychic powers, shoot or Run in their turn.

Cindis wrote:
But if it counts as having moved after it disembarked on the opponents turn how can it move again?

The "counts as moved during shooting and assault phase" is there so that your models cannot stay stationary and claim the benefits of such, like firing a heavy weapon at full effectiveness. Movement is normally allowed during your movement phase, and nothing in this rule restricts that.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

demonwalker wrote:
It counts as having moved for that one player turn. So during the rest of your opponent's shooting phase and their assault phase, you count as moved. Then the turn ends, as does the effect of the disembarking.

Disembark only affects one turn. It's not going to affect both your opponents turn and your turn, other than that you can't assault out of a Rhino that blows up on your opponent's turn.

This is incorrect. The rule says:

"After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

When it says "that turn" it refers to the turn in which the models' subsequent Shooting phase occurs. Clearly it doesn't affect both your opponent's and your turn because you cannot manifest your psychic powers, shoot or Run in their turn.

It would seem that by RAW you would count as having moved for the turn though, not only those two phases - as the word turn refers to all four phases: movement, psychic, shooting, and assault.

“In a complete game turn, each player gets a player turn, divided into Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault phases” under The Turn section in BRB

No, that's not what it says.

You count as having moved that turn, but only at the times specified.

Or, obviously, if you actually moved that turn.

It says you count as having moved "that turn" after you disembark though. It even outlines what a player can do in that turn after disembarking - movement is not mentioned as a unit is already counted as having moved. Only psychic powers and shooting would seem to be allowed per RAW.

Cindis wrote:
It says you count as having moved "that turn" after you disembark though. .

Yes, it does. It also says when that applies.

It doesn't say that they count as having moved for the entire turn. It says that when they act in the psychic and shooting phases they count as having moved that turn.

But the word turn specifically encompasses all four phases, and the wording would seem to point very unambiguously to counting as having moved for the turn as a whole, and not the phases mentioned? Else why would they use the word turn when they only wanted it to count for the phases mentioned? Shouldn't it instead read "that phase"?

Because they wanted to specify the pont in time this counts for. So it lasts the following turn, AT those specific points. This is dififcult to argue, as tehy even specify the precise pooints during which they count as having moved.

It really could be taken either way. English has been used in both perspectives and been grammatically correct.

If I remember how my group plays it, they usually allow for movement in the Movement Phase after disembarking a Wreck. But that's just the local perspective.

You can normally only disembark during your own movement phase; when you do so the whole unit counts as having moved(therefore snapshots with heavies, mived profile for salvo, and cannot fire ordnance)

The beginning of your turn always resets movement to "not yet moved" unless a rule specifies otherwise, whether you had moved in your or your opponent's last turn.

Cindis wrote:
But the word turn specifically encompasses all four phases, and the wording would seem to point very unambiguously to counting as having moved for the turn as a whole, and not the phases mentioned? Else why would they use the word turn when they only wanted it to count for the phases mentioned? Shouldn't it instead read "that phase"?

No.

You're hung up on what a turn is, and not looking at how the word is actually being used in this particular case.

'Counts as having moved that turn' means they count as having moved during that turn, not that they count as having moved for that entire turn.

In the shooting phase, they count as having moved that turn. They don't count as having moved that turn for the entire turn.

 insaniak wrote:

Cindis wrote:
But the word turn specifically encompasses all four phases, and the wording would seem to point very unambiguously to counting as having moved for the turn as a whole, and not the phases mentioned? Else why would they use the word turn when they only wanted it to count for the phases mentioned? Shouldn't it instead read "that phase"?

No.

You're hung up on what a turn is, and not looking at how the word is actually being used in this particular case.

'Counts as having moved that turn' means they count as having moved during that turn, not that they count as having moved for that entire turn.

In the shooting phase, they count as having moved that turn. They don't count as having moved that turn for the entire turn.

It depends on if you see that comma as a list or separating a caveat.

I do believe most people see it as the caveat, meaning a side note to the previous statement regarding Running and Shooting in their Shooting Phase. This would mean it does not apply to the Movement, Psychic, or Assault Phases.

I'll re-read this when I get home. I believe I've been playing it wrong.

It appears that, while eligible to move, the unit forced to disembark (Emergency Disembark) counts as having moved whether or not it does. Why? Because 'that turn' refers to the subsequent shooting phase, which is the controlling player's next turn (as opposed to 'this turn' or 'the current turn' or 'the turn in which they are forced to disembark').

Very interesting.

DCannon4Life wrote:
I'll re-read this when I get home. I believe I've been playing it wrong.

It appears that, while eligible to move, the unit forced to disembark (Emergency Disembark) counts as having moved whether or not it does. Why? Because 'that turn' refers to the subsequent shooting phase, which is the controlling player's next turn (as opposed to 'this turn' or 'the current turn' or 'the turn in which they are forced to disembark').

Very interesting.

It is puzzling - since turn, as used in the rules is a very specific word defined as consisting of all four phases. Elsewhere in the rules you can see GW are very careful to differentiate between their use of the word "turn" and "phase" and nowhere yet that I can find have the two words been used interchangeably.

So since you count as having moved "that turn" after disembarking it seems you would be unable to move normally during your subsequent movement phase as I can find no allowance for a unit being able to make more than one move in it's movement phase, nor is there any mention of moving normally in the rule that describes what you can do the turn after disembarking.

DCannon4Life wrote:
It appears that, while eligible to move, the unit forced to disembark (Emergency Disembark) counts as having moved whether or not it does. Why? Because 'that turn' refers to the subsequent shooting phase, which is the controlling player's next turn (as opposed to 'this turn' or 'the current turn' or 'the turn in which they are forced to disembark').

Yes, it's referring to the subsequent shooting phase... but it's referring specifically to that phase.

In that phase you count as having moved that turn.

You don't count as having moved that turn for the entire turn.

 insaniak wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
It appears that, while eligible to move, the unit forced to disembark (Emergency Disembark) counts as having moved whether or not it does. Why? Because 'that turn' refers to the subsequent shooting phase, which is the controlling player's next turn (as opposed to 'this turn' or 'the current turn' or 'the turn in which they are forced to disembark').

Yes, it's referring to the subsequent shooting phase... but it's referring specifically to that phase.

In that phase you count as having moved that turn.

You don't count as having moved that turn for the entire turn.

Nowhere in that sentence is that allowance made, you count as having moved for the turn (not phase) - you are then allowed to cast psychic powers, shoot or run.

Cindis wrote:
It is puzzling - since turn, as used in the rules is a very specific word defined as consisting of all four phases. Elsewhere in the rules you can see GW are very careful to differentiate between their use of the word "turn" and "phase" and nowhere yet that I can find have the two words been used interchangeably.

They're not being used interchangeably.

Moving in the movement phase affects what you can do in later phases. So if the rule just said that you count as having moved in the shooting phase, that wouldn't actually work.

Instead, in the shooting and psychic phases, you can act as per normal but you count as having moved that turn.

This has no effect on any other phase. In those phases you count as having moved that turn. In other phases, you don't.


If you eat a cookie at lunchtime, you count as having eaten today. That doesn't mean that at breakfast time you counted as having eaten that day, even though a 'day' encompases the whole 24 hours.

So since you count as having moved "that turn" after disembarking it

You're talking about two different turns here.

On the turn that they disembark, they count as having moved. Because they moved to disembark.

On the subsequent turn, they count as having moved in the shooting and psychic phases. They don't count as having moved for that entire turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cindis wrote:
Nowhere in that sentence is that allowance made,

What 'allowance' are you referring to?

And yet turn is defined quite clearly as including the movement, psychic, shooting and assault phases earlier in the rulebook, so if you count as having moved for the turn you would therefore count as having moved for all four phases that one player turn includes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They don't count as having moved for that entire turn.

This is the allowance I'm referring to - where does it say they do not count as moving for the entire turn and only the two phases mentioned in the rule in question?

Cindis wrote:

And yet turn is defined quite clearly as including the movement, psychic, shooting and assault phases earlier in the rulebook, so if you count as having moved for the turn you would therefore count as having moved for all four phases that one player turn includes.

Yes... In the psychic and shooting phases, you count as having moved that turn.

You can apply whatever definition you want to the term 'turn' and it will make absolutely zero difference to any other phase.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cindis wrote:

They don't count as having moved for that entire turn.

This is the allowance I'm referring to -

That's not an allowance. It's a lack of any rule saying that they count as having moved for the entire turn.

The rule in question only applies the limitation to two specific phases. In those phases, they count as having moved that turn. So in other phases, they won't count as having moved that turn unless they actually moved, or some other rule says to pretend that they did.

And this is what I meant regarding the difference between a list and caveat perspective.

If in the list perspective, the "counting as having moved that turn" ignores the previous statement as being applicable to it aside from the "their subsequent" portion.

If in the caveat perspective, the "counting as having moved that turn" only applies to the "their subsequent shooting phase" and not the entire turn. In other words, if disembarking from a Wreck, the owning player's Movement Phase they are not having been considered as Moved, so they can move or not. But if even if they do not move during the Movement Phase, they still snap fire Heavy Weapons.

And given the way the rule is written, that latter interpretation is the correct one.

Charistoph wrote:

It depends on if you see that comma as a list or separating a caveat.

I do believe most people see it as the caveat, meaning a side note to the previous statement regarding Running and Shooting in their Shooting Phase. This would mean it does not apply to the Movement, Psychic, or Assault Phases.

To expand on this... I think it's pretty safe to call it a caveat, meaning it only applies to psychic and shooting phases, and you can move during your move phase.

Support for it being a caveat:

1) The grammar is wrong for it to be a list. If it's a list you should be able to put any part of the list in any position. If you put the movement caveat at the start of the list, it reads: "After disembarking, models... counting as having moved that turn..." The proper way to write that would have been "After disembarking, models... [count] as having moved that turn."

2) Everything else is listed chronologically. It would be weird for it to list psychic, then shooting, then go back to movement, and then finish with assault.

3) Not being able to move is a brutal penalty to impose on a unit that just got it's transport blown up already. I'm not sure any transport would be worth taking if you enforced that.

Support for it being a list:

(none)

insaniak is correct. There are no Easter eggs in the rule book .

I suppose the main problem I'm having with this rule as it's being interpreted here is understanding the mechanism by which it carries over from one turn to another and the definition of turn which people are using for it.

For example in the rulebook it is stated under the section for turns that "Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means a player turn unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn"

Now this would seem to limit most actions in the game to only having an effect on the player turn in which they're carried out.

The consensus that seems to have been reached here is that a disembark action affects the player in their subsequent psychic, shooting, and assault phase regardless of whether or not the disembark happened on their turn or the opposing players turn, with undue gravity being given the word "subsequent." Particularly given the context that the section is written in - that of a unit willingly disembarking from a transport.

Now, if we take this word to mean that the effects of a disembark action jump player turns, and are not resolved at the end of the turn in which it occurs how would we play this:

A tactical squad with a heavy bolter begins their turn in a rhino with one hull point remaining, moves 12 inches and then during the shooting phase moves flat out into difficult terrain - a one is rolled and the rhino wrecks, forcing the marines to disembark out of their rhino. The controlling player's turn ends and the other guy takes his turn. When it comes back around to the controlling player's tactical squad on his next turn he does not move his squad during his movement phase and then fires in his shooting phase. Is he firing snap shots or is he firing normally?

If we are to apply the rule as it has been asserted here - a unit that disembarks (willingly or otherwise) counts as having moved in it's subsequent shooting phase, that heavy bolter is firing snap shots. Is this correct? Or are the effects of a disembark move limited to the turn in which they occur?

So, if it's bottom of turn two, and you pop my transport, since my turn is a different turn entirely (top of turn 3) does it carry over? Regardless, I agree with insoniak

Ceaser wrote:
So, if it's bottom of turn two, and you pop my transport, since my turn is a different turn entirely (top of turn 3) does it carry over? Regardless, I agree with insoniak

I don't know? Does it?

Cindis wrote:
The consensus that seems to have been reached here is that a disembark action affects the player in their subsequent psychic, shooting, and assault phase regardless of whether or not the disembark happened on their turn or the opposing players turn, with undue gravity being given the word "subsequent." Particularly given the context that the section is written in - that of a unit willingly disembarking from a transport.

I'm not sure how you're classing the import of the word 'subsequent' as being given 'undue gravity' given that it's precisely the key to determining how this works.


Essentially, the rule is saying that after being forced out of vehicle, you're going to count as moving next time you shoot or cast a psychic power regardless of which player's turn that occurs in.

A tactical squad with a heavy bolter begins their turn in a rhino with one hull point remaining, moves 12 inches and then during the shooting phase moves flat out into difficult terrain - a one is rolled and the rhino wrecks, forcing the marines to disembark out of their rhino. The controlling player's turn ends and the other guy takes his turn. When it comes back around to the controlling player's tactical squad on his next turn he does not move his squad during his movement phase and then fires in his shooting phase? Is he firing snap shots or is he firing normally?

That would depend on whether you take the 'their subsequent shooting phase' as applying to 'their [the army's]' or 'their [the unit's]' shooting phase. The rulebook is somewhat unclear on this.

If you apply it to the army as a whole, then yes, the unit's subsequent shooting phase would be their next turn.

If you apply it to the unit, then their subsequent shooting phase is simply the next time they would be eligible to do something in the shooting phase. Which could be any time they disembark. That leads to a certain amount of uncertainty over whether their next shooting phase should be the next time they are allowed to shoot, or the next time they actually try to shoot... so is probably not correct.


So, in conclusion - the rule as written works just fine for regular disembarking, or for being forced to disembark in your opponent's turn, but I rather strongly suspect that being forced to disembark in your own shooting phase simply wasn't considered by the writer of this rule.

 insaniak wrote:
Essentially, the rule is saying that after being forced out of vehicle, you're going to count as moving next time you shoot or cast a psychic power regardless of which player's turn that occurs in.

Ok, so lets say that same unit is charged in it's opponent's Assault phase but instead of a heavy bolter it has a Grav-gun, a Salvo 2/3 weapon. How many shots does it get for Overwatch? By the ruling here it would get 2 shots, since it counts as moving the next time it shoots regardless of player turn, correct?

Now say it is out of combat by the end of his opponent's turn, say by either Hit and Run or by winning the combat and consolidating. It doesn't move during it's movement phase and fires again, how many shots would it get now? It last tried to fire in the opponent's turn, so is it now free to fire it's full complement during the controlling player's turn? What if it didn't get charged in the turn before? Does it now fire only 2 shots because this is the first time it's been given the opportunity to shoot since it disembarked?

The problem I have with this idea that disembarking in either turn effects what happens in the next (or subsequent) player phase is that you start having to do a lot of mental acrobatics to fit it into these scenarios - conflicts with other rules and contradictions with basic game terminology starts to arise.

If you read the line in a vacuum, as we have here - the argument that it effects either players turn would seem compelling. However, if we take that line in the overall context of the "Embarking & Disembarking" section that it was written in - one that describes the normal course of events for a unit disembarking a transport in it's own turn, then the rule becomes much easier to reconcile with others and applies consistently in all scenarios.

In this section a unit disembarks during it's own movement phase, a disembarkation is described as placing models 1" away from any access point and then making a normal move, so long as the model does not end more than 6" from an access point. It then counts as having moved for that turn, and in the subsequent psychic and shooting phases which come after the movement phase in a standard player turn. It is this normal move made after disembarking that is being referred to later in the same section by the clause "counting as having moved that turn." Simple, clean, and easy.

And turn, as stated earlier in the rulebook, refers to a player turn by default unless specifically stated otherwise as being a game turn. At the beginning of that units next turn it can then safely be assumed that it has not moved for that turn.

Now when the disembarkation happens on the opposing players turn the same limitations apply, with the additional caveat that the models may only move 3" instead of the standard 6", this is the only deviation from the normal course of events as outlined under the Vehicle Damage and How it Affects Passengers. So the model disembarks, moves up to 3" and then counts as having moved during that player turn only this time the turn it counts as having moved in is the opponent's and not the controlling players, effecting things like Salvo weapons in overwatch. At the beginning of the next player turn it will then revert to a non-moving state.

In this version, where disembark moves are not assumed to carry over from turn to turn the rule can be applied consistently and with no conflicts or assumptions.

You're making this far more complicated than it actually is.

In the unit's next psychic and shooting phases, they count as having moved. So anything they try to do in those phases that is affected by movement is resolved as if they had moved.

No mental gymnastics required.

I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

Failing a dangerous terrain test that wrecks the vehicle during a flat-out move in a shooting phase is such an unbelievably specific and unusual situation that I don't blame GW at all for not writing the rule in such a way as to cover that scenario sensibly.

If that DOES happen, agree with your opponent what to do, ask a judge, or roll a die.

Every other situation is sufficiently covered.

Cindis wrote:
I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

You're ignoring rules as written. Rules as written states only the psychic and shooting phases are affected. My movement phase is not. If we played, you wouldn't get your way. A TO would agree with me 10/10 times. You have no argument. This thread is invalid.

Cindis wrote:
I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

I already addressed this.

Yes, you would count as having moved in your subsequent shooting phase. It's a little silly, but probably an oversight.

Ceaser wrote:


You're ignoring rules as written. Rules as written states only the psychic and shooting phases are affected. My movement phase is not. If we played, you wouldn't get your way. A TO would agree with me 10/10 times. You have no argument. This thread is invalid.

We're talking about whether or not a unit that is forced to disembark counts as having moved in it's next shooting phase.

As most people in this thread seem to be arguing a disembarkation, forced or otherwise, affects the players next shooting phase, regardless of whose turn it occured on.

The language "subsequent shooting phase" seems to be confusing a lot of people, since they take that as meaning the next shooting phase. If it's your turn, as it is in the context of the rule being written in the book, that phase happens directly after your movement phase. If you're forced to disembark in your opponent's phase, again you count as having moved in your opponents turn - which would effect things like overwatch.

If you then take the rule and apply it from your opponents turn into your turn things start getting complicated, definitions start getting twisted, and rules start being broken or ignored, as they have in the examples I posted.

If someone can point me to the rule that allows the moved condition to carry over from one player turn to another I'd appreciate it.

Let's look at the full rule . . .



If you read the full rules in context, disembarking is talking about a normal disembarking that occurs in the player's movement phase and I marked in red the indicators of this.

I marked in green where the rules make first mention of a disembark during the enemy's turn. Prior to that point, the rules on disembarking were only dealing with disembarking that occurs during the movement phase, ie normal disembarking.

Notice where I marked in green the sentence adds info with regards to 'the Assault phase of its own turn' which fits perfectly fine if we interpret the prior portions in red as 'normal disembarking during your movement phase' but is logically confusing if we interpret that sentence as applying also to forced disembarking from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn. The green portion makes mention of its 'own turn' which it would not need to if the red portion was already inclusive of the situation where 'a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn'. If the red portion was already inclusive then 'their subsequent Assault phase' would already be 'the Assault phase of its own turn'.

Cindis wrote:
The language "subsequent shooting phase" seems to be confusing a lot of people, since they take that as meaning the next shooting phase.

That's what 'subsequent' means, yes.

If someone can point me to the rule that allows the moved condition to carry over from one player turn to another I'd appreciate it.

You mean other than the rule that we've been discussing this whole time?


It's not that the rule 'carries over'... On the turn that they disembark they count as having moved because they moved. In their subsequent psychic and shooting phases (which if they disembarked in the opponent's turn will mean their next turn) they count as having moved in those phases because the rule under discussion here says that the do.

It's two separate conditions that are being applied. The former is just the result of actually moving. The latter is an extra condition that is applied to cover situations where the unit disembarks at some time other than their own movement phase, so that they don't get to ignore the fact that they moved when it comes time to shoot or cast psychic powers.

You've found one specific scenario so far where the RAW results in a slightly peculiar outcome. That happens with 40K... less common scenarios are quite often overlooked by the rules writers. The rest of the time, the rules as written here work just fine.

The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks. Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense? Let's see the page number on that one.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility, especially when a viable alternative has been shown to work instead.

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

What are you talking about? You've provided ONE situation where the rules result in a slightly peculiar outcome.

That's not a proof that the interpretation of the rules is incorrect, just a proof that they're a little wonky in that particular situation.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks.

The problem being that while this interpretation might cover your scenarios, it doesn't match the actual rules.

Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense?

You seem to have critically misunderstood that post. The reference to it only applying the next time the unit shoots was provided as a strong suggestion that a particular possible interpretation was likely incorrect.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility.

I'm not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I'm discussing interpretations of the rules for a game of toy soldiers, not running for mayor. However, please point out which scenario I have ignored. So far as I can recall, I've addressed every scenario you have presented, but it's possible I missed one.

Or are you taking 'The rules are a little weird in this particular situation' as 'ignoring' the scenario?

 insaniak wrote:

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

What are you talking about? You've provided ONE situation where the rules result in a slightly peculiar outcome.

That's not a proof that the interpretation of the rules is incorrect, just a proof that they're a little wonky in that particular situation.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks.

The problem being that while this interpretation might cover your scenarios, it doesn't match the actual rules.

Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense?

You seem to have critically misunderstood that post. The reference to it only applying the next time the unit shoots was provided as a strong suggestion that a particular possible interpretation was likely incorrect.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility.

I'm not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I'm discussing interpretations of the rules for a game of toy soldiers, not running for mayor. However, please point out which scenario I have ignored. So far as I can recall, I've addressed every scenario you have presented, but it's possible I missed one.

Or are you taking 'The rules are a little weird in this particular situation' as 'ignoring' the scenario?

Cindis is correct in that you are trying to read the one rule in isolation. If you read the rule in context, you can see a clear differentiation between where it discusses normal disembarking vs forced disembarking during the opponent's turn. In order to claim RAW you must also read the rules in their entire context. The rule you are debating, when read in context, is only applying to the normal situation of disembarking (ie during the unit's movement phase).

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks. Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense? Let's see the page number on that one.

Well, the impacting colonel provided the rule, let's see what it says again:

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Disembarking
...
Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I've bolded the pertinent statement in mind. "(I)n THEIR subsequent Shooting/Assault Phase" is the pertinent portion. If it was just "in THE subsequent Shooting/Assault Phase", than it would only apply to the turn in which the Disembark happened.

Is your opponent's Shooting Phase and Assault Phase the one used by your models? Aside from striking back in the Assault Phase, Sweeping, Falling Back, and other datasheet specific rules, the answer is no. They do not do anything in your opponent's phases, but they do have many options of actions available in their owner's phases.

Basic extrapolation from there then indicates that the one the phases the models possess as "theirs" is their owning player's phases. Which means that the consideration isn't made until the models can check for Targets to Shoot or to Charge.

As for movement in the Movement Phase, I'm more in the caveat interpretation since it makes more grammatical sense. To put it another way, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase." This method of writing flows better and makes more contextual sense. This means that do not have to sit still in the Movement Phase, but standing still will make no difference on Salvo, Heavy, and Ordnance Shooting than if you did.

"Counting as moving that turn" is an adjectival present participle clause modifying "models".

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.


When we parse it properly as an adjectival present participle, we can see that "that turn" refers to the state of the models "after disembarking", ie the turn in which the models disembark.

Up to this point, the disembarking rules have only been discussing what happens during normal disembarking (ie disembarking that happens during the unit's movement). 'Subsequent phase' in the context of normal disembarking is the psychic and shooting phase immediately following the disembarking unit's movement phase.

The text immediately following the above rule is . . .



This would appear to be the portion of the rules which discuss the special case of what happens when you disembark "from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn"


Again you want to look at the entire section on disembarking to see the clear differentiation between the discussion of normal case (red) and special case (green).

Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Cindis wrote:
Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Yes, as it's the assault phase, and he is to only be counted as moving for the shooting phase. In the assault phase, for over watch purposes, per rAw, he can shoot full salvo

Charistoph wrote:
If in the caveat perspective, the "counting as having moved that turn" only applies to the "their subsequent shooting phase" and not the entire turn. In other words, if disembarking from a Wreck, the owning player's Movement Phase they are not having been considered as Moved, so they can move or not. But if even if they do not move during the Movement Phase, they still snap fire Heavy Weapons.

This: For the purposes of firing Heavy and Salvo weapons, models count as having moved during their turn, whether or not they actually moved, due to the Emergency Disembark.

And this is what I have NOT been playing correctly (or rather, not enforcing with my opponents because, let's face it, I play Eldar and my Heavy Weapons don't care if they moved or not).

Ceaser wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Yes, as it's the assault phase, and he is to only be counted as moving for the shooting phase. In the assault phase, for over watch purposes, per rAw, he can shoot full salvo

Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

Spoiler:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.

Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I disagree. There is stronger contextual reference to consider the "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to the previous statement of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". No distinction is made regarding to the reason for the Disembark, and the following sentence does nothing to change that. Indeed, the latter sentence may be poorly referencing a Vehicle that receives an Explodes! result (poorly because you do not disembark from that result) as both Wrecked and Explodes! both reference the Transport as being destroyed.

This means that when the models reach their subsequent Shooting Phase, they count as having moved that turn, whether they moved in the Movement Phase or not.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

Spoiler:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.

Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I disagree. There is stronger contextual reference to consider the "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to the previous statement of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". No distinction is made regarding to the reason for the Disembark, and the following sentence does nothing to change that. Indeed, the latter sentence may be poorly referencing a Vehicle that receives an Explodes! result (poorly because you do not disembark from that result) as both Wrecked and Explodes! both reference the Transport as being destroyed.

This means that when the models reach their subsequent Shooting Phase, they count as having moved that turn, whether they moved in the Movement Phase or not.

Caveat? That is not a grammatical term. First you need to deal with the actual grammar of the sentence.

"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause as it lacks a noun and is not a standalone statement. As a dependent clause, it modifies some 'noun' or 'verb' in the independent clauses of the sentence. "Counting as moving that turn" is a present participle clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" in the first of two independent clauses in the rule. What counts at moving that turn? Answer: 'the models count as moving that turn'. The dependent clause has nothing to do with the prepositional phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and provides no clarifying information with regards to 'phrase', caveat or otherwise, because 'phrase' most assuredly is not 'counting as moving that turn'.

Basically, asserting that 'counting as moving that turn' acts as a caveat to 'in their subsequent Shooting phase' is utterly nonsensical since it violates the grammar of the sentence. Whatever 'contextual' read you think you are arriving at cannot go against basic grammar. Try again.

So, when we adhere to the actual grammar and do a proper contextual analysis, we come to the conclusion that "counting as moving that turn" describes and provides additional clarifying information as to the current state of the models, which happens to be "after disembarking".

If you want to get grammatical I think the issue is poor use of the specific determiner "that" in "that turn" leading to ambiguity in which specific turn is being referred to, i.e. the turn of disembark or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
If you want to get grammatical I think the issue is poor use of the specific determiner "that" in "that turn" leading to ambiguity in which specific turn is being referred to, i.e. the turn of disembark or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.

col_impact wrote:
Caveat? That is not a grammatical term. First you need to deal with the actual grammar of the sentence.

I wasn't going for Oxford English Professor-level of grammatical science here. I was using the word caveat as how it is learned it, which is, "a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations." Now if considered in that frame of mind, then it makes perfectly fine grammatical sense for the phrase "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to previous phrase of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". You seem to be using the "counting as moving that turn" in a list sense, as in addition to the allowance to use psychic powers and to shoot in the subsequent phase.

col_impact wrote:
"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause as it lacks a noun and is not a standalone statement. As a dependent clause, it modifies some 'noun' or 'verb' in the independent clauses of the sentence. "Counting as moving that turn" is a present participle clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" in the first of two independent clauses in the rule. What counts at moving that turn? Answer: 'the models count as moving that turn'. The dependent clause has nothing to do with the prepositional phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and provides no clarifying information with regards to 'phrase', caveat or otherwise, because 'phrase' most assuredly is not 'counting as moving that turn'.

I believe I referenced that it is a dependent clause, considering that I treat it as a caveat to the previous statement. In other words, while "models count as having moved during that turn", is a perfectly viable statement, considering that it would make more sense to state such a list as, "models count has having moved during that turn, can manifest psychic and either shoot or Run in the subsequent Shooting Phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault Phase.", covers a proper listing reference using the Phases in proper order.

However, the statement of moving is made after the statement of shooting, indicating that it is more properly considered as thus, "models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.", and treating the statement of counting as moving as a proviso of limitations to the shooting phase and not as a list member.

col_impact wrote:
Basically, asserting that 'counting as moving that turn' acts as a caveat to 'in their subsequent Shooting phase' is utterly nonsensical since it violates the grammar of the sentence. Whatever 'contextual' read you think you are arriving at cannot go against basic grammar. Try again.

So, when we adhere to the actual grammar and do a proper contextual analysis, we come to the conclusion that "counting as moving that turn" describes and provides additional clarifying information as to the current state of the models, which happens to be "after disembarking".

Again, I disagree. The organizing of lists in order of sequence is standard policy and grammatical use and used often in the writing of this rulebook, which this sentence does not use. The fact that moving does place certain limitations to the shooting phase does in fact carry contextual weight. I think it is more that you have a different concept of "caveat" than I do.

Who counts as moving that turn isn't the issue, though.

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models, counting as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

To the contrary, I think models in their subsequent shooting phase is an appropriate noun to count as having moved that turn, but then, I explained that above.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models, counting as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

To the contrary, I think models in their subsequent shooting phase is an appropriate noun to count as having moved that turn, but then, I explained that above.

Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.

"In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.

"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.

Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.



The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.

col_impact wrote:
Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.

Considering that this would be advanced grammar, and not basic grammar, I would say that you fail at proper instruction. I am using the terms I am familiar with. As I said, I am not taking this to Oxford English Professor level, especially as most people here probably only passed high school English by the greatest luck, myself included, and slept through those portions of phrases and clauses since they didn't make sense. But apparently you do not understand what I mean, and more importantly, you do not care.

"Contextual" as in viewing the context of the statement. Taking "Deep Strike, also known as Deep Strike Reserves" is taking a phrase out of the context of the sentence.

"Caveat" is a way of setting a condition or limitation. In this case, applying the counting as moved that turn to shooting in the subsequent shooting phase.

"List" is when someone makes a list of something. I like to eat carrots, potatoes, and apples, but not peas, is a list of options. You can move forward, jump left, and shamble right, but you cannot fall behind is another list.

col_impact wrote:
"In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.

Which actually does not counter anything I have stated previously. But then, maybe you are focusing too much?

col_impact wrote:
"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.

Yes, it is a dependent clause, just like all caveats are. Caveats as provisos of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations require something to apply it to. In this case, shooting in their phase after they disembarked.

col_impact wrote:
Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run, but they cannot declare a charge.

The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.

More importantly, when the rulebook, and indeed, all proper writers, create a list, such as indicating the actions allowed to a unit after they disembark, they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.

But hey, you worry about the iron ratio of the nails, I'll enjoy the house.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.

Considering that this would be advanced grammar, and not basic grammar, I would say that you fail at proper instruction. I am using the terms I am familiar with. As I said, I am not taking this to Oxford English Professor level, especially as most people here probably only passed high school English by the greatest luck, myself included, and slept through those portions of phrases and clauses since they didn't make sense. But apparently you do not understand what I mean, and more importantly, you do not care.

"Contextual" as in viewing the context of the statement. Taking "Deep Strike, also known as Deep Strike Reserves" is taking a phrase out of the context of the sentence.

"Caveat" is a way of setting a condition or limitation. In this case, applying the counting as moved that turn to shooting in the subsequent shooting phase.

"List" is when someone makes a list of something. I like to eat carrots, potatoes, and apples, but not peas, is a list of options. You can move forward, jump left, and shamble right, but you cannot fall behind is another list.

Sorry. You have google and the internet at your disposal. If you cannot bother to read up on and research actual English grammar then how can we take what you argue seriously. I have studied grammar at the university level and I used to teach grammar at the university level. I have presented a well-supported grammatical analysis that counters your lazy attempt and anyone who wants to check up on what I am arguing merely has to research grammar on the internet. "Contextual", "caveat", and "list" are homemade terms you came up with in some kind of "Charistophe's cool tricks to reading rules". I will stick with actual grammar since that is what we are allowed when we formulate a RAW argument.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.

Which actually does not counter anything I have stated previously. But then, maybe you are focusing too much?

On the contrary. It directly counters everything you have said previously. "Counting as moving in that turn" is an adjectival present participle dependent clause that directly modifies "models" and does not have anything to do at all with the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" which is a prepositional phrase that modifies 'shoot or run' in a localized way. Your argument is that "counting as moving in that turn" acts as a caveat to "in their subsequent shooting phase". I have wholly proven your argument to be wrong as it is based on a fundamental misread of the grammar in the rule. If you are somehow in your head reading "counting as moving in that turn" as acting as a caveat on " in their subsequent shooting phase" then you are in fact misreading it and are grammatically confused by the sentence. So your read does not count at all in a RAW discussion, because RAW includes the grammar in which the rules are written.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.

Yes, it is a dependent clause, just like all caveats are. Caveats as provisos of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations require something to apply it to. In this case, shooting in their phase after they disembarked.

col_impact wrote:
Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run, but they cannot declare a charge.

The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.

More importantly, when the rulebook, and indeed, all proper writers, create a list, such as indicating the actions allowed to a unit after they disembark, they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.

But hey, you worry about the iron ratio of the nails, I'll enjoy the house.

Sorry. Grammar does not work that way. Dependent clauses can stylistically be moved around and be well-formed grammatically. The positioning of where dependent clauses wind up does not in and of itself carry semantic weight - they still only modify the noun or verb of the independent clauses that they do. You would know all these things if you would bother to read up on grammar but you are admittedly too lazy to do so. In fact your interpretation is based on misconceptions and a willful neglect of actual grammar and a wrongful application of some 'hacky' rules of interpretation that you are making up.

they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.

This is all stuff you are making up out of nowhere. Grammar does not work this way at all. We are not allowed to replace grammar with your made-up rules of interpretation. Mark your argument as HYWPI.

Feel free to check up on what I am arguing about grammar and sense. It's all out there on the internet, and if you want to you can challenge my analysis. But you cannot challenge my analysis with your made-up hacky rules of interpretation and claim RAW.

col_impact wrote:
Sorry. You have google and the internet at your disposal. If you cannot bother to read up on and research actual English grammar then how can we take what you argue seriously. I have studied grammar at the university level and I used to teach grammar at the university level. I have presented a well-supported grammatical analysis that counters your lazy attempt and anyone who wants to check up on what I am arguing merely has to research grammar on the internet. "Contextual", "caveat", and "list" are homemade terms you came up with in some kind of "Charistophe's cool tricks to reading rules". I will stick with actual grammar since that is what we are allowed when we formulate a RAW argument.

I may have google and the internet available part of the time, but the time to research such things are not always available, especially at work. Even more so when they seem counter to how I have read and used English for the last 35 years. And yet, you try to apply literary terms as grammatical terms means that you really are incredibly off.

Considering that you are the only one who didn't understand what I meant with the terms I used, consider them completely made up or homemade, and you can't even believe that they are actual terms makes me wonder at your grammatical knowledge.

And no, I see no grammatical context for your position because it would take hours to research such concepts to confirm them, and that's assuming that I wasn't already exhausted from a day's work, and an evening's work with family. I think we're dealing with a low level of grammar that is either below your training, or you're making stuff up.

Either way, it seems more that you are trying to use big fancy words to overwhelm someone who disagrees with you in to believing you actually know what you are talking about.

col_impact wrote:
On the contrary. It directly counters everything you have said previously. "Counting as moving in that turn" is an adjectival present participle dependent clause that directly modifies "models" and does not have anything to do at all with the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" which is a prepositional phrase that modifies 'shoot or run' in a localized way. Your argument is that "counting as moving in that turn" acts as a caveat to "in their subsequent shooting phase". I have wholly proven your argument to be wrong as it is based on a fundamental misread of the grammar in the rule. If you are somehow in your head reading "counting as moving in that turn" as acting as a caveat on " in their subsequent shooting phase" then you are in fact misreading it and are grammatically confused by the sentence. So your read does not count at all in a RAW discussion, because RAW includes the grammar in which the rules are written.

I disagree. I still think that you are trying to use big words to ignore how people use English. I have already pointed out that if the movement was only considered for the model alone, it would have actually been placed where you put it in your example. In fact, many of the other parts of the sentence are not separated by comma until the caveat and the exception against Charging.

col_impact wrote:
Sorry. Grammar does not work that way. Dependent clauses can stylistically be moved around and be well-formed grammatically. The positioning of where dependent clauses wind up does not in and of itself carry semantic weight - they still only modify the noun or verb of the independent clauses that they do. You would know all these things if you would bother to read up on grammar but you are admittedly too lazy to do so. In fact your interpretation is based on misconceptions and a willful neglect of actual grammar and a wrongful application of some 'hacky' rules of interpretation that you are making up.

Well, I used google to define dependent clause and that's what it came up with on short order. So either it is not what you think it is, or you are just plain wrong. I am using grammar concepts that has been taught to me by numerous English teachers and used by numerous well-credited English authors as well and standard manual uses.

So, either you are just talking big, or these concepts are just so far outside your paradigm and use that it is useless and unrecognizable to you.

col_impact wrote:
This is all stuff you are making up out of nowhere. Grammar does not work this way at all. We are not allowed to replace grammar with your made-up rules of interpretation. Mark your argument as HYWPI.

Feel free to check up on what I am arguing about grammar and sense. It's all out there on the internet, and if you want to you can challenge my analysis. But you cannot challenge my analysis with your made-up hacky rules of interpretation and claim RAW.

If I am making things up, then only I would understand what I'm talking about. The only person who seems not to understand the concept I have espoused is you. So, either I'm talking too low for your fanciness, you're a blowhard, or both.

Feel free to check up on what I'm talking about then. I will not be cowed by your big words that are being used to try and browbeat me in to submission. If I have time after work and dealing with my kids and a good long nap, I might try to review the advanced grammar concepts you claim ignores how English is used regularly. However, I will likely not. Those who are professional English types are worse than mathematicians and engineers and like to try and muddle the language in to some magic code only "they" can truly "understand".

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.

When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.

LOL. Once again you are admitting to little more than laziness and have slunk down into pure defensiveness. And, even worse, you are trying to present your laziness as some virtue over some "fanciness" or "blowhardiness" on my part. Nice try putting a positive spin on your laziness, but you are just effectively conceding to my due diligence in doing an actual grammatical analysis.

I am claiming no elite knowledge. My grammatical argument is easily verifiable by anyone who takes the time and the information is freely available on the internet. I have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong as it is based on a misread and a misunderstanding of the grammatical structure of the sentence and I have done so by pointing to grammatical concepts that you can freely double check yourself (clause, phrase, independent vs dependent clauses, participle clauses, present participles, past participles, gerunds, prepositional phrases, etc.)

Since you "will likely not" put anything further into your lazy argument, it looks like my argument stands uncontested.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.

When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.

Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".

So grammatically there is no ambiguity. Contextually as well there is no ambiguity. Up until this point in time, the rules have only made mention of the case of normal disembarking during the unit's movement phase (I mark the indicator's of this in red in the spoiler below). So contextually speaking, "that turn" can only mean the turn the models disembark. Immediately after the key sentence we keep debating is the actual first mention in the rules of the case of a unit disembarking during the opponent's turn. The sentence that follows (which I mark in green) then provides the player with the information they need to handle this special case.

col_impact wrote:
LOL. Once again you are admitting to little more than laziness and have slunk down into pure defensiveness. And, even worse, you are trying to present your laziness as some virtue over some "fanciness" or "blowhardiness" on my part. Nice try putting a positive spin on your laziness, but you are just effectively conceding to my due diligence in doing an actual grammatical analysis.

I am claiming no elite knowledge. My grammatical argument is easily verifiable by anyone who takes the time and the information is freely available on the internet. I have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong as it is based on a misread and a misunderstanding of the grammatical structure of the sentence and I have done so by pointing to grammatical concepts that you can freely double check yourself (clause, phrase, independent vs dependent clauses, participle clauses, present participles, past participles, gerunds, prepositional phrases, etc.)

Since you "will likely not" put anything further into your lazy argument, it looks like my argument stands uncontested.

You confuse laziness for not wanting to have to go through several hours, at a minimum, to try and understand what you cannot seem to explain in simple words. If I wanted English lessons, I will do so in the proper forum. This is not an English class forum, but again, you seem even more lazy since you will not even try to understand the simpler terms and concepts I am proposing that others here seem to have little trouble understanding.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.

When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.

Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".

So grammatically there is no ambiguity. Contextually as well there is no ambiguity. Up until this point in time, the rules have only made mention of the case of normal disembarking during the unit's movement phase (I mark the indicator's of this in red in the spoiler below). So contextually speaking, "that turn" can only mean the turn the models disembark. Immediately after the key sentence we keep debating is the actual first mention in the rules of the case of a unit disembarking during the opponent's turn. The sentence that follows (which I mark in green) then provides the player with the information they need to handle this special case.

Spoiler:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.

Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

Even more interesting, if they already make a normal move, why bother making a note that they count as moving after mentioning the following Shooting Phase, unless they disembarked in a separate turn... Order of process is still important when listing clauses, and this clause is out of order if only referring to the model counting as moved the turn they disembark, as opposed to counting as moved in the shooting phase following their Disembarking.

But hey, you see what you choose to see, and I think you are over-complicating the whole sentence.

It's always amused me how quickly people lose interest in an argument once it becomes clear they've lost.

Charistoph wrote:
You confuse laziness for not wanting to have to go through several hours, at a minimum, to try and understand what you cannot seem to explain in simple words. If I wanted English lessons, I will do so in the proper forum. This is not an English class forum, but again, you seem even more lazy since you will not even try to understand the simpler terms and concepts I am proposing that others here seem to have little trouble understanding.

I provided a grammatical analysis using grammatical terms that are easily verifiable on the internet. Your 'simpler terms and concepts' have nothing to do with grammar. I will stick with the grammatical analysis that actually involves grammar and welcome anyone to double check my analyses. We are discussing RAW and grammar is a transparent inquiry. Any other person could in theory investigate the matter and should come up with the exact same grammatical analysis that I have, which is good since we are dealing with formulating RAW arguments that are supposed to emerge out of the words, language, and the structure of the rules themselves.

Charistoph wrote:
Even more interesting, if they already make a normal move, why bother making a note that they count as moving after mentioning the following Shooting Phase, unless they disembarked in a separate turn... Order of process is still important when listing clauses, and this clause is out of order if only referring to the model counting as moved the turn they disembark, as opposed to counting as moved in the shooting phase following their Disembarking.

But hey, you see what you choose to see, and I think you are over-complicating the whole sentence.

First, disembarking would not necessarily count as a move unless it was designated as such by the rules.

Second, order of process is not important when listing clauses. There is quite a bit of flexibility to how they can be ordered while maintaining identical sense.

This sentence has four clauses.



The clauses can be re-arranged in numerous ways while maintaining the same sense.



You are falsely trying to generate significance out of where the clause 'counting as having moved that turn' occurs in the overall sentence. No matter where it is, it is a present participle dependent clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" because that's how the grammar of the sentence works, and you are free to double check my grammatical analysis. Grammar is not some secret knowledge known only to the Illuminati.

col_impact wrote:
I provided a grammatical analysis using grammatical terms that are easily verifiable on the internet. Your 'simpler terms and concepts' have nothing to do with grammar. I will stick with the grammatical analysis that actually involves grammar and welcome anyone to double check my analyses. We are discussing RAW and grammar is a transparent inquiry. Any other person could in theory investigate the matter and should come up with the exact same grammatical analysis that I have, which is good since we are dealing with formulating RAW arguments that are supposed to emerge out of the words, language, and the structure of the rules themselves.

Considering you don't know what a caveat, list, or context is, I doubt your veracity or your competance.

col_impact wrote:
You are falsely trying to generate significance out of where the clause 'counting as having moved that turn' occurs in the overall sentence. No matter where it is, it is a present participle dependent clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" because that's how the grammar of the sentence works, and you are free to double check my grammatical analysis. Grammar is not some secret knowledge known only to the Illuminati.

Incorrect. I am not falsely doing anything. I just do not agree with your assessment. I may be mistaken, but I am stating what I believe to be fact.

I still stand by that according to my assessment based on 35 years of an, admittedly at best, amateur study of English, that that phrase is being used as a caveat to the models for their following shooting phase similar to use in other instruction manuals and conversations. If I have time to study all this phrase nonsense you are blathering about, I might look it up, but considering I am a busy man and have no time to waste on something I will not even gain a partial English credit on, I wouldn't hold my breath.

col_impact wrote:
Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".

Having considered it further I think you may be mistaken in considering it an adjectival participle clause, and that it's more correctly an adverbial participle clause. I think also you're mistaking the use of the participle clause for the use of a relative clause.

Earlier in the thread you claimed we could make the sentence clearer by rearranging:

"After disembarking, models, counting as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

Except to any sensible person the sentence reads horrifically (more so than it already does, if you can believe it), because arranged like that it should read as a relative clause rather than using the participle clause:

"After disembarking, models, which count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

The problem with your idea of rearranging is that it's not worded that way because a participle clause is being used, and not a relative clause. Taking it as the adverbial participle rather than adjectival however it makes clear sense in referring to both subject and verb (models shooting) in terms of the condition in which or how the subject performs the verb (counting as having moved that turn when doing so).

That also tidily does away with the ambiguity of the specific determiner because it's always referring to the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs, regardless of whether the disembark was in the immediately preceding Movement phase or the opponent's preceding Shooting phase.

Cindis wrote:
It's always amused me how quickly people lose interest in an argument once it becomes clear they've lost.

It's always amused me how quickly people incapable of making the proper argument jump on the bandwagon of someone once it seems (rightly or wrongly) they know what they're talking about. And then try to stick the boot in as if they have some credit to claim.

"Yeah, clauses - um, and phrases! It's not my argument at all but - what he said!"

My points still stand and I'll try to explain without using too many big words since that seems to scare some people. When reading the sentence in the context it's written, using the proper definitions of the terms used per RAW, its very clear the unit only counts as moving the turn it disembarks. Any other conclusion breaks the game unless, as col impact has also pointed out, you start making ridiculous assertions with no support per RAW at all.

For your interpretation to work the following must also be true:

1) Units that disembark in the enemy turn cannot move in their subsequent turn - as they count as having already moved that turn, not phase. Turn is the word used and per RAW a turn refers to all four phases.

2) A unit that is forced to disembark in its shooting phase will not be able to fire Heavy or Salvo weapons normally until its remained stationary for two more controlling player turns.

3) Units forced to disembark during the enemy turn, not yet counting as moved, will fire their full complement of salvo shots in overwatch.

If we apply your version of the rule the game starts becoming a completely unintuitive mess, as rules and terms start being used rather more loosely and these absurd inferences have to start being made to get everything to fit together.

Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.

I.. don't see why this is an issue.

1) First off, under "Placing Disembarked Models" (pg81), the first paragraph describes placing disembarked models in base contact with their vehicle's Access Point. The second paragraph then clearly states The model can then make a normal move, but must end within 6" of the Access Point. So it establishes that under normal circumstances, after disembarking from a transport, units can move normally.

2) Under "Disembarkation Restrictions" (also pg 81) is the line in the OP, establishing what units can and can't do after Disembarking. It establishes here that units count as moving in the context of its subsequent phases - "..models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn..." This quite clearly establishes that this statement concerns possible actions in the Shooting phase, not the movement phase.

3) That same paragraph the rule continues: "If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule." There is no other restriction on what a unit can or cannot do if its transport was destroyed in the previous player's turn.

4) On the next page under EFFECT OF DAMAGE ON PASSENGERS, the rules establish that units forced to disembark from a destroyed transport must end their move within 3" of their wrecked transport rather than the usual 6", and must take a pinning test. No other restrictions appear to be applied to the unit.

5) Way back on page 17 under "GAME TURNS AND PLAYER TURNS" the rulebook specifically states that any rule that refers to 'a turn' means a 'player turn'.

In summation, the only argument here that I can see is whether a unit is allowed to move its full 6" or is limited to 3" in the controlling player's next movement phase, since the rules on Effect of Damage on Passengers makes no mention of subsequent movement phase. Other than this there is no hint of any movement restrictions due to destroyed transports. The references to "counts as having moved" have no bearing on whether or not a unit can move; they simply establish that if the unit chooses not to move at all after a forced disembarkation, it still counts as moving for the purposes of determining what actions the unit can take in the Shooting phase. Also there is a difference between a statement like "counts as moving" and "is treated as if it has moved"; the former applies a reference to limitations on subsequent actions, the latter an actual restriction on the current action.

Personally I think the intention is that the Pinning test units must take when their transport is destroyed is supposed to be the primary 'limiting' factor on the unit and that otherwise, a forced disembarkation is no different than a normal disembarkation done at the start of the controlling player's next movement phase, with the possibly exception of the unit having to end its move within 3" of its destroyed transport rather than the normal 6".

Cindis wrote:
My points still stand and I'll try to explain without using too many big words since that seems to scare some people. When reading the sentence in the context it's written, using the proper definitions of the terms used per RAW, its very clear the unit only counts as moving the turn it disembarks. Any other conclusion breaks the game unless, as col impact has also pointed out, you start making ridiculous assertions with no support per RAW at all.

For your interpretation to work the following must also be true:

1) Units that disembark in the enemy turn cannot move in their subsequent turn - as they count as having already moved that turn, not phase. Turn is the word used and per RAW a turn refers to all four phases.

Not true at all. If the phrase regarding moving that turn is a caveat for the ability to use Psychic Powers, Shooting, and Running (which is all that was mentioned in the sentence to that point), than it is not addressing the Movement Phase at all. If the Movement Phase is not addressed, than it is not affected. So being a caveat would translate that a unit disembarked by enemy action will snap fire Heavy Weapons and short fire their Salvo Weapons in their following Shooting Phase, even if they stayed perfectly still since they lost their Transport.

Cindis wrote:
2) A unit that is forced to disembark in its shooting phase will not be able to fire Heavy or Salvo weapons normally until its remained stationary for two more controlling player turns.

That is a risk for going Flat Out in Dangerous Terrain, isn't it? But this is a balance concern.

Cindis wrote:
3) Units forced to disembark during the enemy turn, not yet counting as moved, will fire their full complement of salvo shots in overwatch.

Ironically true. But this is a balance concern. There are quite a few rules that get quirky when used during unanticipated times.

Cindis wrote:
If we apply your version of the rule the game starts becoming a completely unintuitive mess, as rules and terms start being used rather more loosely and these absurd inferences have to start being made to get everything to fit together.

Hate to tell you this, but the game is already a completely unintuitive mess, with rules and terms being used rather loosely, with absurd inferences having to be made to get much of anything to fit together. Or should we talk about Super-Heavy targeting and its relationship to the Shooting Sequence?

Cindis wrote:
Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.

What English lesson? He was using words that I have not seen in use (much less regular use) since before I was attracted to girls, literally. When it was suggested that he try to "dumb it down", he doubled down and just kept right on going. The average person has more use of Algebra than the technical terms used in advanced sentence deconstruction, so those terms and concepts get lost to time.

FRIENDLY REMINDER TIME:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

IN PARTICULAR:

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".

Having considered it further I think you may be mistaken in considering it an adjectival participle clause, and that it's more correctly an adverbial participle clause. I think also you're mistaking the use of the participle clause for the use of a relative clause.

Earlier in the thread you claimed we could make the sentence clearer by rearranging:

"After disembarking, models, counting as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

Except to any sensible person the sentence reads horrifically (more so than it already does, if you can believe it), because arranged like that it should read as a relative clause rather than using the participle clause:

"After disembarking, models, which count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

The problem with your idea of rearranging is that it's not worded that way because a participle clause is being used, and not a relative clause. Taking it as the adverbial participle rather than adjectival however it makes clear sense in referring to both subject and verb (models shooting) in terms of the condition in which or how the subject performs the verb (counting as having moved that turn when doing so).

That also tidily does away with the ambiguity of the specific determiner because it's always referring to the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs, regardless of whether the disembark was in the immediately preceding Movement phase or the opponent's preceding Shooting phase.

Your analysis is faulty. You are correct in that it is a present participle clause, as I have also noted. However, it is an adjectival present participle clause and as an adjectival clause it will function similarly to a relative clause since those are always adjectival (and no I am not confusing relative clauses with participle clauses at all). "Counting as having moved during that turn" can only be descriptive of a noun, an object that can count as having moved (ie the object is mobile and not stationary). Your argument that it is an adverbial clause has no support - you try to argue that it refers to both subject and verb as if it were some sort of adjectival AND adverbial clause (which is entirely faulty since the clause is either adjectival or adverbial but not both). However, simply put, verbs (actions) do not 'count as having moved', nouns (objects) do.

Moreover, you seem to be trying to obfuscate the issue by saying certain examples read horrifically when they read as perfectly fine and acceptable English.

col_impact, you've simply confused the participle clause. That's all there is to it. It's adverbial rather than adjectival.

How do we know this? Because it's placing a limitation on what the models can do and when. It's not describing how the models are; it's modifying the action they are given permission to take. Charistoph is entirely correct in his non-grammatical assessment of it being provided as a caveat; a caveat necessarily places a condition on something in the same way adverb participle clauses do grammatically.

The way you've rearranged the sentence (the first time, not that mess of semantically-altered sentences you just provided as if they were the same thing) I can see why you've made the mistake, because ordinarily an adjective participle clause will be close to the noun it's describing.

In this case though it's properly close to the verb it modifies as an adverbial participle clause, which is why rearranging it the way you have absolutely butchers it in its proper use as an adverb - you've moved it to the opposite end of the sentence from the verb it modifies.

You've tried to misrepresent my argument, claiming I'm arguing as if it were both adverb and adjective when I'm not. I pointed out that an adverb describes how the shootin action is performed by the subject in this case. I have not said it modifies the subject, though.

You've then gone on to write a handful of rearranged sentences as if rearranging it is something you can necessarily do without changing the semantics of the sentence.

It's noteworthy that in all of your examples you've conveniently moved the clause close to the noun to make it seem more like it's modifying it as an adjective would, which is not the case in the original. Grammatically perhaps you can alter the sentence structure in that way just fine, but semantically you should expect the meaning of the sentence may (though won't always) change.

I don't expect you to agree with me; you're far too entrenched in your own position for that, as am I. But that's fine; I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
col_impact, you've simply confused the participle clause. That's all there is to it. It's adverbial rather than adjectival.

How do we know this? Because it's placing a limitation on what the models can do and when. It's not describing how the models are; it's modifying the action they are given permission to take.

Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

So good job on identifying the clause as a present participle, but you fail at discriminating adjectival versus adverbial.

I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.

Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.

 Deathypoo wrote:
I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.

Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.

Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.

I have a question regarding transports and wrecking:

When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?

 Vector Strike wrote:
I have a question regarding transports and wrecking:

When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?

Read the rulebook Your question is answered there.
Wrecked vehicle is not removed from table, so you are not allowed to place models on the spot the vehicle was, only on top of it, but:
wrecked vehicle bceomes dificult terrain AFTER unit disembarked - unitl then you are not allowed to place models on it..

 Vector Strike wrote:
I have a question regarding transports and wrecking:

When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?

Deathypoo wrote:I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.

Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.

Indeed. But while he thinks he's smart enough to understand the rules of grammar he is espousing, he cannot explain them outside of those terms.

col_impact wrote:Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.

The information may be there, but the simple terms mean nothing without understanding the relationships. It is researching these relationships and every aspect of those relationships, including possibilities that may counter your argument, that takes time.

The English language is not a technical manual one can just look up simple definitions for. It is a system and an art form with interconnections between its members of such you are discussing that are far more complex than looking up a paragraph or phrase in a rulebook is.

Laziness is not as much the factor as time is. Though, I admit the lack of desire to devote my precious time resources for such research just to confirm or deny your claims does play a part.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?

Its grammatically possible albeit only in an adjectival manner, describing the subject. The models can count as having moved that turn. The action (shoot) cannot count as having moved that turn.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?

Its grammatically possible albeit only in an adjectival manner, describing the subject. The models can count as having moved that turn. The action (shoot) cannot count as having moved that turn.

So, it would be impossible for the models to count has having moved when they reach their subsequent shooting phase, even if they did not move?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?

Its grammatically possible albeit only in an adjectival manner, describing the subject. The models can count as having moved that turn. The action (shoot) cannot count as having moved that turn.

So, it would be impossible for the models to count has having moved when they reach their subsequent shooting phase, even if they did not move?

The question you are asking does not follow from the previous question or my answer. I indicated in my answer that grammatically the models are described as counting as having moved that turn and that the action is not described as counting as having moved that turn. This is because the clause grammatically modifies the subject and not the verb. If you want to start talking logic then back up and frame some questions in terms of logic and not muddle the discussion with loaded questions. Hotswitching from grammatical inquiry to logical inquiry on your part can be seen as a an attempt at obfuscating the discussion.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary.You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action.

Sorry, but how do you propose to use "counting as having moved that turn" to describe the subject "models" without changing the form of the clause? You absolutely can use "counting as having moved that turn" to modify the verb, however - using "how" rather than "who".

"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn.

How can the models shoot? Counting as having moved that turn.

The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.

The who doesn't factor into it. How certainly does, though, as I've shown above. To draw a parallel:

"Jim can run quickly."

"How can Jim run? Quickly."

Oh look, adverbs.

Cindis wrote:Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.

Considering you're arguing something other than his "English lesson" and have not actually had any own input into the grammatical argument, you've no right to say this. It's evident the grammar is going right over your head and you're simply nodding like a child to the words of someone talking above you in words you don't understand.

Please stop.

col_impact wrote:Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.

Considering the only two people arguing the grammar in any detail are those who have both studied and taught it at a tertiary level (well, who both claim to) it's pretty evident that laziness has nothing to do with it. It'd be nice for you step down from your high horse of education and experience, and not treat people who haven't had the education and don't have the time to Google (which, let's be honest, isn't a swiftly helpful or conducive way to learn grammar) as if they're idiots. They're not.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary.You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action.

Sorry, but how do you propose to use "counting as having moved that turn" to describe the subject "models" without changing the form of the clause?

All of these mean exactly the same thing and I have not changed the form of the clause - the present participle is used in each sentence.

"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn."

"The models,counting as having moved that turn, can shoot."

"Counting as having moved that turn, the models can shoot."

The relative clause equivalent:

"The models, who count as having moved that turn, can shoot."

All of this free movement of the clause in question amply illustrates that the adjectival read is the correct one.

Notice I can do the same free movement in an adverbial instance using your example.

"Jim can run quickly."

"Quickly, Jim can run."

"Jim, quickly, can run."

Some of those sound like Yoda, but the adverbial read is always clear. The position of the adverb or adjective does not factor in.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


You absolutely can use "counting as having moved that turn" to modify the verb, however - using "how" rather than "who".

"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn.

How can the models shoot? Counting as having moved that turn.

This literally makes no sense and shows that you are trying to force an adverbial read based on positioning alone, but grammar does not work that way. 'Counting as having moved that turn' describes the noun and not the verb. What is counting as having moved that turn? The models.

col_impact wrote:
All of these mean exactly the same thing and I have not changed the form of the clause - the present participle is used in each sentence.

"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn."

"The models,counting as having moved that turn, can shoot."

"Counting as having moved that turn, the models can shoot."

The relative clause equivalent:

"The models, who count as having moved that turn, can shoot."

All of this free movement of the clause in question amply illustrates that the adjectival read is the correct one.

Sorry, that wasn't particularly clear of me. What I was trying to get at was that, if it's adjectival and has no relation to the verb, you should be able to remove the verb from the equation and with the same participle clause create a simple is/are sentence with the subject/object the adjective modifies:

"The model is/the models are counting as having moved that turn."

Which is ridiculous because it should of course be, "The models count as having moved that turn."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Sorry, that wasn't particularly clear of me. What I was trying to get at was that, if it's adjectival and has no relation to the verb, you should be able to remove the verb from the equation and with the same participle clause create a simple is/are sentence with the subject/object the adjective modifies:

"The model is/the models are counting as having moved that turn."

Which is ridiculous because it should of course be, "The models count as having moved that turn."

"The model is counting as having moved that turn"

"The models are counting as having moved that turn"

Those are both perfectly understandable sentences and are simple is/are constructions of the even simpler . . .

"The models count as having moved that turn."

The above sentences only differ in tense.

It looks to me like the meaning of the clause is retained even when the verb "to shoot" is dropped.

All of this just further underscores that "Counting as having moved that turn" is an adjectival participle clause modifying "models"

I have to say I find this discussion quite silly and there is some trolling in progress. There is a point when general consensus and common sense overrides splitting hairs and multiple paragraphs to make a weak attempt at proving your point. Abusive language means nothing in a logical debate .

text removed.
reds8n

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?

Its grammatically possible albeit only in an adjectival manner, describing the subject. The models can count as having moved that turn. The action (shoot) cannot count as having moved that turn.

So, it would be impossible for the models to count has having moved when they reach their subsequent shooting phase, even if they did not move?

The question you are asking does not follow from the previous question or my answer.

Than you truly do not understand the direction I am heading. Not surprising since you do not understand what I meant regarding caveat and list and consider them not but homegrown words and ideas.

Also interesting that the you stated that the statement under discussion basically can only apply in such a manner in adjectival manner, yet, you also continue to insist that phrase operates in this manner as well.

col_impact wrote:I indicated in my answer that grammatically the models are described as counting as having moved that turn and that the action is not described as counting as having moved that turn. This is because the clause grammatically modifies the subject and not the verb. If you want to start talking logic then back up and frame some questions in terms of logic and not muddle the discussion with loaded questions. Hotswitching from grammatical inquiry to logical inquiry on your part can be seen as a an attempt at obfuscating the discussion.

Ah, so instead of actually answering the question, you revert back to trying to only look at things grammatically. Even more so, you refuse to even try to understand everything I've been saying.

For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".

The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.

Try reading the sentence aloud in two different ways as a way to understand my perspective and listen how they flow. In the first method, read everything after "models can" as you would listing off the possible maneuvers and actions available to the models and their unit. In the second method, try reading the sentence this way, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase", with the phrase in parentheses slightly under your breath as if done as a side note or caveat.

Now, which method is less painful to listen to? Which sounds more appropriate?

You can try going off about how grammar works, but if you use technical words again, my eyes will just glaze over and my short-term memory will not catch them. Fair warning, as if it should be needed at this point.

Charistoph wrote:

For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".

The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.

It looks like we are in agreement that the clause pertains to the whole sentence. I am glad that you are starting to see things my way. Your prior argument was trying to attach the clause narrowly to just "in their subsequent Shooting phase".

The clause in question, "counting as having moved that turn," globally modifies the entire sentence by describing the noun "models" which is a shared noun in the entire sentence (which is composed of two dependent clauses and two independent clauses).

The clause could be placed lots of places in the sentence and retain the same meaning.


These sentences all mean the same thing since the clause is always describing globally the state that the models are in after disembarking. In fact, since the clause globally grammatically modifies the noun for the whole the sentence, we know "that turn" refers to the turn of disembarking. In the normal state of things the turn of disembarking is the same turn as the phase described by 'the subsequent Shooting phase'. The normal case isn't what is confusing for people.

What is confusing for some people is the odd situation when "that turn" of disembarking is not the same turn "of the subsequent Shooting phase" which occurs when the unit disembarks in the enemy turn. "That turn" still refers to the turn of disembarking since the clause globally modifies the noun for the whole the sentence and describes the state of the models "after disembarking". "That turn" now refers to the 'enemy's turn' in the unusual case of disembarking on the enemy's turn. "The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved [in the enemy's] turn".

So we have cases where disembarking happens on your turn and cases where disembarking happens on the enemy's turn. "That turn" always refers to the turn the disembarking happens. If the subsequent Shooting phase is affected by whatever "that turn" winds up being then shooting will be affected. In the normal case of disembarking on your turn, 'heavy' weapon firing for the disembarked unit might be affected in the shooting phase, for example. In the case of disembarking in the enemy turn, shooting will be affected for the unit that disembarked in the case of overwatch in the enemy turn but not for normal shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn of the subsequent Shooting phase. It just happens to refer to the same turn in the normal case.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".

The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.

It looks like we are in agreement that the clause pertains to the whole sentence. I am glad that you are starting to see things my way. Your prior argument was trying to attach the clause narrowly to just "in their subsequent Shooting phase".

To the contrary, that has been my position from the beginning. I was attributing it to the previous phrase, to which I was referencing, "models can... subsequent Shooting Phase". You just assumed that I was only referencing "in their subsequent Shooting Phase." Even more so, you were not even acknowledging a connection between the phrase in question and any part of the sentence but the initial noun.

col_impact wrote:
The clause in question, "counting as having moved that turn," globally modifies the entire sentence by describing the noun "models" which is a shared noun in the entire sentence (which is composed of two dependent clauses and two independent clauses).

Which is not what you have been saying or implying with your arguments. What you have been saying and implying is that it only applied to the models and it ignored every single part of the sentence in between them.

col_impact wrote:
The clause could be placed lots of places in the sentence and retain the same meaning.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

Counting as having moved that turn, models can, after disembarking, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers, counting as having moved that turn, and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase, counting as having moved that turn.

These sentences all mean the same thing since the clause is always describing globally the state that the models are in after disembarking. In fact, since the clause globally grammatically modifies the noun for the whole the sentence, we know "that turn" refers to the turn of disembarking. In the normal state of things the turn of disembarking is the same turn as the phase described by 'the subsequent Shooting phase'. The normal case isn't what is confusing for people.

You cannot claim that it applies to the entire sentence before, but then claim that the turn it is speaking of only applies to the turn the models embarked. It is either referencing the preceding portion of the sentence, at which point it is being a caveat, or it is only referencing the models alone, at which point it is being used as part of a list of allowed/disallowed actions and conditions applying to the models in question.

col_impact wrote:
What is confusing for some people is the odd situation when "that turn" of disembarking is not the same turn "of the subsequent Shooting phase" which occurs when the unit disembarks in the enemy turn. "That turn" still refers to the turn of disembarking since the clause globally modifies the noun for the whole the sentence and describes the state of the models "after disembarking". "That turn" now refers to the 'enemy's turn' in the unusual case of disembarking on the enemy's turn. "The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved [in the enemy's] turn".

I disagree. If it was just meant to apply only to the turn the models disembarked, than counting as moved would be used as a list item, and so would have been placed earlier in the sentence. Movement comes before psychic manifesting and shooting, and so any restrictions on movement would .be mentioned first as any proper list is constructed. By placing it after the permission to manifest psychic powers, shoot, and Run, it places the restriction on the models when it reaches those points and defines that particular stretch of the sentence as such.

In other words, if it was only to restrict the models to counting as moved the turn it Disembarked, the sentence would be as such, "After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

But if you put commas to separate out the phrase as a clause, "After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn. manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.", than this still puts the caveat delineated in this phrase on to what is following and not exclusively to the action of Disembarking.

col_impact wrote:
So we have cases where disembarking happens on your turn and cases where disembarking happens on the enemy's turn. "That turn" always refers to the turn the disembarking happens. If the subsequent Shooting phase is affected by whatever "that turn" winds up being then shooting will be affected. In the normal case of disembarking on your turn, 'heavy' weapon firing for the disembarked unit might be affected in the shooting phase, for example. In the case of disembarking in the enemy turn, shooting will be affected for the unit that disembarked in the case of overwatch in the enemy turn but not for normal shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn of the subsequent Shooting phase. It just happens to refer to the same turn in the normal case.

Again, I disagree. If it was only meant to reference the turn the model disembarked, its placement in the sentence would be completely different, as I have demonstrated above. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn as the subsequent Shooting Phase, but the placement of the phrase sure seems to be what is referencing, and more likely than just the turn the models disembarked.

And did you bother with the little exercise I asked you to do? It's far easier than googling English phrase definitions and relationships, or even looking up a paragraph in the rulebook.

Charistophe, there are several big problems with your argument.

1) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" has been identified as an adjectival present participle globally modifying the noun 'models'. Grammatically, "that turn" can only refer to the turn the models disembark.

2) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" is not locally or specifically tied to the phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" in any way so no direct reference exists between "that turn" and "phase". An example of a specific tie or reference would be . . ."After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " Without a specific tie, grammatically and logically, "that turn" the models disembark could mean the same turn as the one that would include 'their subsequent Shooting phase' OR it could not mean the same turn. Its really up to the specific game instance whether they are indeed the same turn - no specific tie or reference is enforcing they are the same turn. In the case of disembarking on the enemy turn, "that turn", as in the turn the the unit disembarks, will not be the same turn as the unit's subsequent Shooting phase.

3) The positioning of the "counting as having moved that turn" clause does not introduce meaning nor does positioning on its own have meaning-bearing weight. It cannot take the place of a specific reference or tie, nor can it overrule grammatical structure. Your argument hinges heavily on making a big to-do on where the clause is exactly positioned, when grammar and semantic allow for flexible positioning. The clause can be re-positioned and retain the exact same meaning since the clause, as I have shown, globally modifies the whole sentence. While there might be stylistically a superior position for a clause or a position that aids reader comprehension, the clause can be repositioned without affecting the meaning and repositioning will not alter the meaning. Further, it should be pointed out that even if you say out loud the clause to yourself in a scary voice that does not actually do anything to the grammar or semantics of the actual rule. Your argument doesn't have any substance - arguing based on clause positioning and the voice you use when you read the rule is meaningless drivel. I strongly suggest turning to grammar or semantics to provide substance to your argument.

4) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" provides information that may be relevant in most cases but does not have to be relevant in all cases. The information that the clause brings up is relevant in the case where the model disembarks in its movement phase (which is most often the case) but it is not relevant in the case where the model disembarks in the enemy turn. You seem hellbent on insisting that the clause will always be relevant and will impose an active restriction on all cases when there is no reason at all to assume that the information in the clause is always relevant in all cases. The rule makes mention of "counting as having moved that turn" because it will often (thought not always) be relevant information for play. It will not be relevant information in the case of disembarking on the enemy's turn.

I know you have a strong feeling that "that turn" must always be the same turn as "their subsequent Shooting phase" but grammar, semantics, logic, and the rule as they are written all disagree with you.

There's a mercy rule right?

When does the fight get stopped?

Lol don't reply... If you won't neither will I.

col_impact wrote:
Charistophe, there are several big problems with your argument.

1) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" has been identified as an adjectival present participle globally modifying the noun 'models'. Grammatically, "that turn" can only refer to the turn the models disembark.

I should point out that only you have made this identification. I still question this judgement since you believe "list" and "caveat" to be made up, homegrown words.

col_impact wrote:
2) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" is not locally or specifically tied to the phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" in any way so no direct reference exists between "that turn" and "phase". An example of a specific tie or reference would be . . ."After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " Without a specific tie, grammatically and logically, "that turn" the models disembark could mean the same turn as the one that would include 'their subsequent Shooting phase' OR it could not mean the same turn. Its really up to the specific game instance whether they are indeed the same turn - no specific tie or reference is enforcing they are the same turn. In the case of disembarking on the enemy turn, "that turn", as in the turn the the unit disembarks, will not be the same turn as the unit's subsequent Shooting phase.

1) "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " would be inaccurate, since movement is not performed in that phase unless it is Running, of which the sentence already addressed..

2) There is more to tie in "that turn" to the "subsequent shooting phase" than to "after disembarking". Again, the order of the sentence precludes that option.

col_impact wrote:
3) The positioning of the "counting as having moved that turn" clause does not introduce meaning nor does positioning on its own have meaning-bearing weight. It cannot take the place of a specific reference or tie, nor can it overrule grammatical structure. Your argument hinges heavily on making a big to-do on where the clause is exactly positioned, when grammar and semantic allow for flexible positioning. The clause can be re-positioned and retain the exact same meaning since the clause, as I have shown, globally modifies the whole sentence. While there might be stylistically a superior position for a clause or a position that aids reader comprehension, the clause can be repositioned without affecting the meaning and repositioning will not alter the meaning. Further, it should be pointed out that even if you say out loud the clause to yourself in a scary voice that does not actually do anything to the grammar or semantics of the actual rule. Your argument doesn't have any substance - arguing based on clause positioning and the voice you use when you read the rule is meaningless drivel. I strongly suggest turning to grammar or semantics to provide substance to your argument.

Which just shows you know little in how instructions are constructed. When instructions are made, if any order of operations has been already established, any properly written future lists involving them will also follow that order as well. Placement can be VERY important when writing out instructions, and even more so in lists. If I told someone that the Phases of the turn were Psychic, Shooting, Movement, and Assault, they would assume that Movement is the 4th Phase, whereas the game truly considers it the first. But I guess your training doesn't involve instructional writing?

But let's face it, "models' is not what you are trying to attach to this clause, it is "After disembark" that you are connecting this phrase to. And the connections between these to phrases are remote.

And if you think the "voice" doesn't matter, than you misunderstood the point of the exercise. Timber, pacing, and inflections alter when voicing them in different ways. With these changes, the level of communication increases. This wasn't about being presented in a "scary" or "sarcastic" tone, but how you are perceiving the sentence to be.

You keep saying that this phrase is one thing, but you keep trying to force it as another when you start spouting big words and give your final summation. And that does not help your case, either.

col_impact wrote:
4) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" provides information that may be relevant in most cases but does not have to be relevant in all cases. The information that the clause brings up is relevant in the case where the model disembarks in its movement phase (which is most often the case) but it is not relevant in the case where the model disembarks in the enemy turn. You seem hellbent on insisting that the clause will always be relevant and will impose an active restriction on all cases when there is no reason at all to assume that the information in the clause is always relevant in all cases. The rule makes mention of "counting as having moved that turn" because it will often (thought not always) be relevant information for play. It will not be relevant information in the case of disembarking on the enemy's turn.

If it was only pertinent in the turn that the unit disembarks, either it would state it at the beginning of the sentence, per how instructions are normally kept in order of operations, or it would be included as part of the Disembarking instructions, including right after the permission to move the 3-6" after Disembarking.

col_impact wrote:
I know you have a strong feeling that "that turn" must always be the same turn as "their subsequent Shooting phase" but grammar, semantics, logic, and the rule as they are written all disagree with you.

I cannot say anything about grammar, as the technical language is as beyond me at this present time as some of the technical painting language. Logic states otherwise, as they follow set patterns to establish relationships, and that phrase is out of place to tie in to "after disembarking" and ignore "subsequent Shooting Phase". Semantics is the study of language and would include both grammar and logic in its purview. Since one I am familiar with is against your perspective, I will rely on what I know, which tells me your assessment is inaccurate or too focused to consider the entire picture as a whole.

As I said before, have fun studying the nails, I'll enjoy the house.

P.S.: Now, it is entirely possible that the sentence is just poorly constructed for conveying that point that you believe it is trying to reach, it's not like that has happened before, but poorly constructed or not, it is currently what it is. If it was truly meant not to consider the turn the subsequent shooting phase is in, the word "subsequent" is beyond superfluous, and actually contributes to confusing the issue. If they count as moving in the phase they Disembark, then they would still be considered having moved in the Shooting Phase of the same turn. This is what logic tells me.

Okay let's look at the tense of this rule and establish what the rule does in reference to time. Again this will be an examination of grammar and will be an examination that anyone can double check since it will be using terminology that is universally available and standard and thereby fully appropriate for a Rules as Written discussion.

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

1) "After disembarking," is an adverbial present participle clause expressing timing. The time clause + present participle (after + <verb>-ing) is used to express that the action has been completed in the immediate past and is actively informing the ongoing present state of affairs.

2) "Models" is the shared subject for the two dependent clauses and the two independent clauses. What we want to determine is the current state that the various tenses place the subject in (ie Is the subject in the past, present, or future? What is the past, what is the present, and what is the future not yet realized from the perspective of the subject?)

3) (optional) modal verb "can" + verb ("e.g., shoot") + 'subsequent' = can + verb in present tense (present as future) + context of "subsequent"/upcoming. The models are granted the potential to do the action in the upcoming future. The use of "subsequent" means that the rule is referring to future time and future states and not the current state.

4) "counting as having moved that turn" = present participle (counting) + perfect participle (having moved).
The subject is currently being considered in a state of completion for an action (move) in the current time ("that turn")

The timing of the sentence and the temporal relationship between different portions of the rule can be established by tense.

A) The models have disembarked in the immediate past that is currently informing and describing the present.

B) The present state of the models is 'counting as having moved' and 'after disembarking' in a current time which is "that turn"

C) The models are granted the potential to do things in upcoming time frames (e.g., in their subsequent Shooting phase) that are forward in the future and not the current time frame of the models.


An examination of the tense of the rule further cements the argument that "that turn" refers to the turn disembarking happens and that "that turn" refers to the present state of affairs and that "subsequent" refers to future events which may or may not be encapsulated by "that turn". Normally, "that turn" will encapsulate "subsequent phase" but in the rare case of disembarking on the enemy turn "that turn" will not encapsulate "subsequent phase".

col_impact wrote:
Okay let's look at the tense of this rule and establish what the rule does in reference to time. Again this will be an examination of grammar and will be an examination that anyone can double check since it will be using terminology that is universally available and standard and thereby fully appropriate for a Rules as Written discussion.

Again, the terminology may be universally available, but UNDERSTANDING the relationships they encompass will take much longer. Dumb it down.

col_impact wrote:
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

1) "After disembarking," is an adverbial present participle clause expressing timing. The time clause + present participle (after + <verb>-ing) is used to express that the action has been completed in the immediate past and is actively informing the ongoing present state of affairs.

2) "Models" is the shared subject for the two dependent clauses and the two independent clauses. What we want to determine is the current state that the various tenses place the subject in (ie Is the subject in the past, present, or future? What is the past, what is the present, and what is the future not yet realized from the perspective of the subject?)

3) (optional) modal verb "can" + verb ("e.g., shoot") + 'subsequent' = can + verb in present tense (present as future) + context of "subsequent"/upcoming. The models are granted the potential to do the action in the upcoming future. The use of "subsequent" means that the rule is referring to future time and future states and not the current state.

4) "counting as having moved that turn" = present participle (counting) + perfect participle (having moved).
The subject is currently being considered in a state of completion for an action (move) in the current time ("that turn")

The timing of the sentence and the temporal relationship between different portions of the rule can be established by tense.

A) The models have disembarked in the immediate past that is currently informing and describing the present.

B) The present state of the models is 'counting as having moved' and 'after disembarking' in a current time which is "that turn"

C) The models are granted the potential to do things in upcoming time frames (e.g., in their subsequent Shooting phase) that are forward in the future and not the current time frame of the models.


An examination of the tense of the rule further cements the argument that "that turn" refers to the turn disembarking happens and that "that turn" refers to the present state of affairs and that "subsequent" refers to future events which may or may not be encapsulated by "that turn". Normally, "that turn" will encapsulate "subsequent phase" but in the rare case of disembarking on the enemy turn "that turn" will not encapsulate "subsequent phase".

You seriously have never seen a phrase presented as a caveat to a previous statement where the previous statement is in a future tense, but the caveat is in a present tense and grammatically correct? I really find that hard to believe, unless all you have read is treatises on grammar.

But again, you do not understand caveats, anyway, so I guess its a waste of time trying to help you understand this.

Got to admit that I skipped some pages and I have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe a summary at this point would be a good idea?

Edit: ..autocorrect..

Charistoph wrote:
You seriously have never seen a phrase presented as a caveat to a previous statement where the previous statement is in a future tense, but the caveat is in a present tense and grammatically correct? I really find that hard to believe, unless all you have read is treatises on grammar.

But again, you do not understand caveats, anyway, so I guess its a waste of time trying to help you understand this.

I am fully aware of what a caveat is, and frankly you have been applying a completely erroneous understanding of what a caveat is this whole time.

Caveat is a legal term as when someone provides you a notice of liabilities that you might not be aware of.

Caveats in English usage are statements issued as warnings or disclaimers, etc. and they are clearly marked as such ("Warning:. . .", "Take note:. . .", "N.B. . . .", "A caveat being . . ., "Disclaimers: . . ."). Caveats make themselves known as caveats ("you have been warned"). If it's unclear whether something is a caveat or not then it's not a caveat. Caveats are clearly marked as such since an important part of what they do is make sure that the party in question has been made fully aware ("caveat emptor").

The dependent clause in question "counting as having moved that turn" is simply not a caveat. It functions perfectly well in the sentence and is not marked off in any way from the sentence. The clause does not itself form a full statement or convey warning or break from the prose as a bolded proclamation or address the reader directly.

If you want to insist that the clause in question is a caveat then you are going to have to back up your claim with support and examples of usage. So post some links to examples on the web. Take note: you have your work cut out for you because as you will soon find out you have been wrongly applying caveat this whole time.

Keep in mind that saying that a clause kind of functions like a caveat is wholly different than saying a clause is a caveat. Normal vanilla dependent clauses have no problems functioning like a caveat (ig imposing qualifications on what is conveyed elsewhere) without actually themselves being caveats.

col_impact wrote:
"The model is counting as having moved that turn"

"The models are counting as having moved that turn"

Those are both perfectly understandable sentences and are simple is/are constructions of the even simpler . . .

"The models count as having moved that turn."

The above sentences only differ in tense.

It looks to me like the meaning of the clause is retained even when the verb "to shoot" is dropped.

All of this just further underscores that "Counting as having moved that turn" is an adjectival participle clause modifying "models"

If you think those sentences are correct as a current continuous state applying to a timeframe or turn distinct from the current (i.e. 'that turn' rather than 'this turn') then, um, okay.

Naw wrote:
Got to admit that I skipped some pages and I have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe a summary at this point would be a good idea?

Edit: ..autocorrect..

It was established a few days ago that units getting out of transports only count as having moved for the turn they get out, this is indisputable from both a RAW standpoint and a proper understanding of the English language.

The last day or so has just been Charistoph and Mr. Shine unwilling to admit they were mistaken and col_impact repeatedly bludgeoning them until they submit.

If this was a UFC fight the ref would've stopped it in the first round.

Or a more fair summary would be that it was not agreed and a debate has gone on about the grammar, with col_impact claiming "counting as having moved that turn" functions as an adjective describing the models (although I'm not sure how he's established that links to the models "after disembarking" and not the models "in their subsequent Shooting phase") and myself claiming it functions as an adverb describing how the models can shoot.

Cindis has agreed with col_impact's grammar argument, seemingly claiming he understands but not actually contributing to it. He's also made some general rules arguments that I believe were not addressed again because they were discussed in the first page or two.

SO, on that note, I think we're done here.

As always, discuss with your opponent if in doubt as to how it is likely to be played.